Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Amendment proposed [26 June]: No. 1, in the preamble, page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
`but not of their duty to use the land for educational purposes'.—[Mr. Cohen.]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question, That the amendment be made.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 9 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fishing

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the state of British fishing. [38921]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has direct responsibility for fishing policy, holds regular meetings with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and I look forward to doing so as well.

Mr. Mitchell: When he has finished expressing his gibbering gratitude to the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations for saving him from the iniquities of the days at sea limitation regime, will the Minister discuss whether it is right or reasonable that the country that contributes the majority of fishing waters and fishing stocks to the so-called European Community pool should be forced to make the biggest reduction in its fleet? Will he consider not simply decommissioning to make space for Spanish vessels but adopting a scrap and build policy to modernise the fleet so that we can catch our own fish?

Mr. Hogg: The essential problem that the House must face is that there is excess fishing capacity measured against the available stocks. Judged according to that criterion, a policy of scrap and build is not manifestly sensible. We must reduce capacity, and the Government's policy of decommissioning is directed at achieving that objective.

Mr. Harris: In the opinion of some fishermen—although they do not shout it from the wheelhouses—our hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fisheries has not made a bad start in his new post. The fishermen and the NFFO particularly welcome the abandonment of the wretched days at sea legislation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend build on that start by accepting the offer from the chief executive of the NFFO, Mr. Barrie Deas, to open talks with the Government on the future of the industry?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State are widely admired in the House and in the fishing industry. I suspect that that is why 134 Labour Members of Parliament declined to vote against the Government position when the matter was debated about 10 days ago. As to a specific meeting to discuss the way forward, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has frequent meetings that are designed to achieve that objective.

Forests, Berkshire

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the percentage increase in forested land in Berkshire resulting from the Government's rural White Paper. [38922]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Madam Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Madam Speaker, forgive me. I apologise profusely and I shall continue to do so if that will make hon. Members happy.
The Government would like to see a doubling of the area of woodland in England over the next half century. However, as the rural White Paper explains, that will depend on securing necessary changes to the common agricultural policy. There are no targets for individual counties.

Mr. Rendel: What plans does the Minister have to try to encourage the reforestation of Britain and to increase payments under the farm woodland premium scheme to encourage farmers to plant their own land?

Mr. Hogg: As the House knows, we already have a very generous grant system in place. Last year, we paid about £30 million in grants to woodland owners. We have led the way within the European Union in greening the common agricultural policy in that respect. The 1992 regulations reflected our own woodlands scheme which was introduced in 1988. As a result of a United Kingdom initiative, land that is used for forestry can now count against set-aside. They are major steps forward and I commend them to the hon. Gentleman.

British Fruit and Vegetables

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by his Department to promote sales of British fruit and vegetables to British consumers. [38923]

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): My colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote British fruit and vegetables.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very full reply. Is he aware, however, that the National Farmers Union is increasingly concerned about certain


European Commission proposals relating to the promotion and marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables? Does he agree that such proposals will seriously disadvantage the British grower and will he, therefore, assure the House that he will do all within his considerable power to ensure that there is a level playing field so that our growers are not disadvantaged?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his trenchant comments. I share his concern and that of the National Farmers Union that the proposals being initiated in Europe for the reform of the common agricultural policy on horticulture should be fair to Britain. We have already expressed concern about their definition of producer groups—that is our main concern. We are determined to secure a level playing field for our growers and, as far as possible, to end wasteful intervention. Those matters will all be taken forward in the negotiations.

Mr. Pickthall: How far have we got in our defence of British lettuce growers against the unreasonable regulations proposed on nitrates in lettuce? When can we expect that preposterous idea to be knocked on the head?

Mr. Boswell: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We take the matter seriously and believe that the proposals are not well founded scientifically. If they were implemented, they would certainly have serious effects on our lettuce growers; they would not contribute to health, as they would discourage the consumption of vegetables and fruit. We shall therefore pursue the matter vigorously in Europe. It has only just come back to us as a result of the report of the EC Scientific Committee for Food, which corroborated our view, and we shall pursue the matter vigorously over the coming weeks and months.

Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend will realise that some supermarkets—I shall name Tesco as their leader—have advocated the eating of Cox's orange pippins and other varieties such as Granny Smiths. That practice should be encouraged. Perhaps there should be an encouraging word from the Department to the supermarkets to increase public relations on the eating of English fruit and vegetables.

Mr. Boswell: The House will appreciate that we have to be a little careful in merely advocating the buying of British produce. At every possible opportunity, I shall be photographed eating an English apple—whether Cox's or otherwise. At every possible opportunity, I shall encourage British supermarkets to stock those varieties and I shall encourage everyone in the House and outside to proclaim their virtue to the customer, who will be well satisfied with them.

Mrs. Golding: When will the Government stand up for British fruit growers? Not only do the Government support French nuclear testing in the Pacific but they stand by while the French dump their apple mountains in Britain. How many more of our apple orchards does the Minister want ripped out by desperate farmers? When will he do something to prevent that, or are the Government too afraid of offending the French?

Mr. Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is a matter of regret that I have to dissent from almost everything she said—possibly, on reflection, she might do so herself. We have supported the interests of British growers. The

grubbing-up scheme was introduced—in the United Kingdom and elsewhere—with the support of our growers. It has helped to remove some of the tail end of the industry and we now have a modern, productive and efficient fruit production industry which is well marketed and receives a great deal of support from growers and retailers. We have every confidence that, through technology, marketing and the involvement of growers, together with the encouragement of our Department, we shall wipe the floor with our competitors.

Mr. Pickles: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), when he visited my constituency without notice, he was told by growers there that, had it not been for the British Government's intervention, they would now be faced with the nitrates directive. Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of growers in my constituency? Thank God somebody stuck up for Britain, and it has benefited the rest of Europe.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. As it happens, he represents my birthplace, and it is nice to receive compliments. We take the matter seriously, and use every opportunity to protect the interests of British growers. We will ensure that butterhead lettuce grown in Britain, whether in the constituency of my hon. Friend or in Lancashire, West, is available for the benefit of our consumers.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take to combat fraud in the common agricultural policy. [38924]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are seeking further reforms of the CAP to reduce the scope for fraud—in particular, to reduce dependence on export refunds and intervention. We also fully support Commission initiatives to apply financial penalties to member states where controls are found to be inadequate.

Mr. Prentice: I welcome that answer as far as it goes, but what on earth have the Government been doing since 1979, given that the CAP has ballooned by 43 per cent. and that fraud accounts for £6 billion out of a budget of £33 billion? Is it not the case that the CAP is infested with fraudsters and cheats ripping off the rest of us, and that the Government have done far too little, too late?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's comments are uncomplimentary and unfair, because the United Kingdom has very much taken the lead in the European Union in tackling fraud. I invite him to cast his mind back to the Essen summit, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured far greater use of the European Court of Auditors and of the European Parliament in scrutinising financial management and bearing down on fraud.
The hon. Gentleman's figure for the extent of fraud is without any foundation. The only basis on which one can estimate fraud is the reported number of incidents, and they bear absolutely no relationship to. the hon. Gentleman's figure. In 1994, member states reported irregularities of just over 1 per cent. of the CAP budget—


hardly the kind of excesses that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Of course all fraud is serious, and of course we are determined to continue to bear down on it in the European Union.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Members on the Government's action against fraud? Does he agree that, if the CAP is to be reformed, it is essential to continue to attack fraud?

Mr. Baldry: I absolutely agree. Of course it is imperative that fraud is eliminated from the CAP or any other policy. The fight against fraud remains a high priority for us. We will continue to keep pressuring the Commission for action further to reform the CAP and to reduce instances of CAP fraud. The Council is negotiating reforms in the fruit and vegetable sector, and we fully support initiatives such as the black list, which is aimed at penalising those who perpetrate fraud.

Mr. Darling: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1995. [38925]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: EC budget expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1995 will be about £28 billion. That is some £2.6 billion below the agricultural guideline.

Mr. Darling: Given that the CAP costs families between £15 and £20 a week, is it not time to embark on a radical reform of the CAP? Can the Minister make a commitment that the Government will raise the matter at next year's intergovernmental conference with a view to amending, if necessary, those parts of the treaty of Rome that affect the CAP, so that the system is fairer, more efficient and less likely to lead to fraud, but leads instead to a reduction in expenditure for most people throughout Europe, including in this country?

Mr. Hogg: The Government's position in support of their policy of reforming the common agricultural policy is extremely well known, and we take every opportunity to impress on the Council, the Parliament and the Commission the need for substantial reform—especially in the context of enlargement and also because of the ceilings of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The hon. Gentleman's advocacy of that policy would be more plausible if the Labour party manifesto of 1992 had touched on the subject at all, and if the party had dealt with the question at its party conference in September.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a remarkable. state of affairs that the policy should so totally lack credibility as to require satellite imagery to counteract fraud? Would not the best course of action for the Government be to tear up the CAP and to replace it with national efficiency payments for British farmers?

Mr. Hogg: I regret having to disagree with my hon. Friend but I do so strongly in respect of his conclusions. Nor do I agree that the policy lacks credibility. The problem with the common agricultural policy is that, although the United Kingdom has serious criticisms to make of the policy, that position is not universally shared by member states. There is no consensus at the moment within the Council or the Community for substantial change.

Mr. Tyler: Can the Minister estimate the proportion of the £28 billion that actually reaches farm incomes in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hogg: The figures are available; I would not want to give the hon. Gentleman a specific figure off the cuff, but I would be happy to do so in writing. One particular figure sticks in my mind, however. A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1993 measured the total transfers by the taxpayer and the consumer in the context of agriculture, and found that only 50 per cent. of them went to farmers. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be more precise, I would prefer to write to him, to preclude the possibility of error.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend detect an certain irony in the fact that the most federalist policy in the Community is now being attacked by the most federalist parties among the Opposition? Does he agree that the real problem with fraud is that so many of our European partners seem to think it is perfectly all right to pass legislation without obeying it, whereas our party resists such legislation but then obeys it to the hilt? Surely that is the problem that is endemic in the whole European structure; ultimately, it is the problem with which we will have to grapple.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right on both counts, and his first point deserves reinforcing. The House will remember that the Leader of the Opposition said on 4 October 1994:
Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated or left behind in Europe.
As I have already said in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), there is no general agreement in the European Union on the need for change. We will bring about change only by pressing for it vigorously all the while. It is quite plain from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will be in no position to do that.

Dr. Strang: Does the Minister recall that, while his predecessors were telling the House that the MacSharry CAP reforms gave Britain all it wanted, the Labour party not only argued that they were inadequate but called for an end to state intervention buying of agricultural produce and an end to export subsidies on agricultural commodities? Will the Minister confirm that that is now the position of the British Government?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman flatters himself. I have the 1992 Labour manifesto in front of me. It contained three paragraphs on the desirability of a ministry for women, and two sentences on the common agricultural policy—neither pointing in the direction to which the hon. Gentleman has just pointed.

Black Market Milk

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to end the trade in black market milk. [38926]

Mr. Baldry: Following investigations by MAFF and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, three producers have been successfully prosecuted for offences associated with illegal trading in milk. Cases against seven other producers are before the courts and further


investigations are in progress. These cases demonstrate the Government's determination to stamp out black market trading in milk.

Mrs. Winterton: Cheshire farmers will be pleased that the matter of black market milk is being dealt with as it is, but is not the real problem the fact that the United Kingdom was dealt a bad hand in 1984 when quota allocations were made by the European Community and the fact that we are restricted to producing only about 85 per cent. of our liquid milk requirement? Is not only one of the ways forward the matter of being able to transfer quota across national boundaries? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he and the Government will put the matter before the European Commission to ensure that Cheshire farmers and other milk producers in Britain are not further disadvantaged in the future?

Mr. Baldry: I hope that my hon. Friend will take back to Cheshire farmers the clear message that black market traders in milk will not get away with it. They will be detected, prosecuted and punished. Not only do they face the risk of penalty imposed by the courts, but the intervention board will impose a super-levy of 30p a litre on all undeclared deliveries of milk. I suspect that that will greatly exceed any fine imposed by the courts. The court fine and the super-levy will represent substantial penalties on any farmer tempted to indulge in trading in black market milk.
Britain has never been self-sufficient in milk. When the quota was set in 1981, it in large part reflected the fact that the Labour Government in the mid-1970s did not adjust the green pound in a way that encouraged dairy farmers. I hope that my hon. Friend will remind her dairy farmers of that fact. Of course, we continue to press in Brussels for intra-Community trade in milk quotas as a means of allowing quota to go to those parts of the Community—

Madam Speaker: Order. These answers are inordinately long. Back Benchers must be given an opportunity to ask questions. Such long answers from Ministers restrict Back Benchers' opportunities.

Mr. Connarty: Is not one of the problems the fact that 70 per cent. of milk quotas in the United Kingdom both for sale and for lease are held by non-producers? The idea of quotas to help the producers and farmers has become so distorted now that quotas are just a commodity to be traded for cash. They are not about farm incomes and preserving the farms of this country.

Mr. Baldry: That does not offer any excuse for trade in black market milk. We have always felt that we would wish to get rid of milk quotas altogether, but, so long as internal support prices in the Community encourage the production of dairy products for which there is no market, it will be difficult to do away with quotas altogether.

Farms (Recycling)

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the farming industry to increase its level of recycling. [38929]

Mr. Boswell: The Ministry has produced guidance for farmers on recycling of waste through its codes of good agricultural practice. Farmers can also take part in an industry-led recovery scheme for farm plastics.

Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister is being complacent. There is a real problem with plastic packaging waste which is a by-product of modern farming methods. When will the Minister talk to colleagues in the Department of the Environment about measures to dissuade farmers from using so much plastic waste or to persuade them to recycle it? Or is the Minister going to wait until the whole country is knee-deep in plastic waste?

Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the farm films recovery service, which has a hotline and has been established to develop a service for farmers. I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for recycling. The opportunities are already available. I assure him that we already talk regularly, frequently and positively with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, which take the lead in waste disposal matters.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduce a comprehensive programme of recycling to recycle the garbage and claptrap spoken by Opposition Members? If they do that, every farmer will vote Conservative.

Mr. Boswell: It is interesting that, during the development of the common agricultural policy, most of the traditional mountains have been removed, including butter, milk and cereals, but the mountain of unrecycled Labour waste and abandoned policies which are then reintroduced in a different form continues to no purpose.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, when I met the Ayrshire branch of the Scottish National Farmers Union, along with Sandra Osborne, the prospective Labour candidate and the next Member of Parliament for Ayr, the union said that it was keen to see farmers recycled? It is important to introduce an early retirement scheme, because the average age of farmers in Ayrshire is over 55. Why are early retirement schemes in place in other parts of the Community but not in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Boswell: In formulating our agricultural policies and selecting the European opportunities available to us, we clearly have to set our own priorities. Clearly, the early retirement of some of the more unwelcome Labour policies such as the minimum wage might be beneficial.

Food Industry Deregulation

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans are in place to enable further deregulation in the food industry. [38932]

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to deregulate the food industry. [38935]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): In addition to the very substantial progress already made by my Department in food law deregulation, we shall be proposing simplification of a large number of composition, labelling and additives regulations from 1 January 1996. In looking for further ways to simplify the law and reduce burdens on business, we shall also be making every effort to persuade our European Community partners of the benefits of deregulation.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst sort of regulation is that which regulates against imagined evils and dangers that hardly exist? I welcome the Government's moves on the deregulation of cheese. Will the Government start reviews of poultrymeat hygiene and meat hygiene to balance the costs of regulation with the injuries, illnesses or deaths from poison? We need a proper balance within the regulation of those industries.

Mrs. Browning: The food law deregulation plan acknowledges that essential standards of food safety and consumer protection must be maintained—but I take my hon. Friend's point about getting the balance right, which we are certainly seeking to do.
I am sure that the House will welcome the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on Tuesday that we have consulted the industry on the deregulation of compositional standards in British territorial cheeses and they are all safe in our hands.

Mr. Nicholson: The Minister is a doughty fighter and, in the spirit of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), I hope that she will convey some of her combativeness to her officials. Is she aware that, unless the numerous allegations made by Mr. Christopher Booker are either disproved or resolved—there is much more resolving to be done—considerable damage will be done to popular regard both for the European Community and for Her Majesty's Government?

Mrs. Browning: We scrutinise carefully all reports in the press, wherever they come from, to see whether they are accurate and need further investigation or are simply examples of opportunistic journalism. It is a matter of great disappointment to me that, when I write in my capacity as a Minister to the editors of national newspapers seeking to correct scientific facts, those editors frequently fail to publish my letters.

Mr. William O'Brien: When considering further deregulation in the agricultural industry, will the Minister take action to safeguard the doorstep delivery of milk which many people wish to see safeguarded?

Mrs. Browning: Those of us who benefit from doorstep deliveries welcome and value that service. But it is not for Ministers to frogmarch milkmen up garden paths to deliver milk unless an order is placed.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is surely wrong. There is no balance in the food industry. Does the Minister accept that, with regard to safety, we need more regulation, not deregulation? For example, over the years, Ministers from her Department have said from the Dispatch Box that bovine spongiform encephalopathy cannot enter the food chain; mad cow disease is not communicable to human beings. It clearly is. That calls for more regulation of the meat industry, not deregulation.

Mrs. Browning: We take seriously BSE and all the scientific findings and investigations in that regard, and science does not support what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He is right to say that there is a need for balance, but the House must judge which is the party of over-regulation and which is the party of deregulation, based on what he has said this afternoon.

Dairying

Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector. [38933]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I regularly meet representatives of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them. I have also had the pleasure of meeting in the last couple of weeks representatives of the Dairy Industry Federation and Milk Marque. Earlier this week, I attended the Dairy Industry Federation's annual lunch.

Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the concern of the Cheshire dairy farmers about black market trading in milk, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), is shared by the overwhelming majority of Staffordshire dairy farmers? Only a few cases have reached the courts so far. Does my right hon. and learned Friend expect many more cases to reach the courts, and has he discussed that with the president of the NFU?

Mr. Hogg: That is an important issue, on which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just spoken. There have been three prosecutions in the recent past, and the impact of the super-levy should act as a substantial deterrent. I very much hope that there will be further prosecutions if the evidence supports them. It is a serious matter against which we must strike.

Mr. Stevenson: In his discussions with the NFU on the dairy sector, did the Minister discuss the fact that the cost of the dairy sector and the CAP is due to increase substantially in the next few years? Did he further discuss the fact that the Paymaster General attended a meeting in Brussels in July and accepted a 10.9 per cent. increase in common agricultural policy expenditure? Does that not mean that the Government's assurance that they intend to control the cost of the bloated CAP regime is not worth the paper on which it is written?

Mr. Hogg: That is simply not right and, coming from the Labour party, it is not attractive, because between 1974 and 1979, when Labour had some responsibility for CAP expenditure, it quadrupled. The 1992 reforms are an important step in constraining expenditure. We have set guidelines within which CAP expenditure should stay, but we must go on pressing for reform, and we will do that. The dairy farmers that I have met recently have expressed themselves satisfied with the return from their sector.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we are the largest consumers of liquid milk in the European Union and that Lancashire housewives resent the fact that, while Lancashire farmers can produce the milk that they would wish to drink, because of the quota system, we have to import that milk?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. We are not self-sufficient in milk. The principal reason for that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in answer to a previous question, is that the agri-monetary policy pursued by the Labour party in the 1970s prevented the development of the British dairy industry to the extent that would otherwise have been the case. Hence, the 1981 base year was less favourable than otherwise one would wish. As to the future, in the long term we should like to


secure market circumstances leading to a phasing out of quotas and, in the interim, we should like to secure, although it will be a difficult negotiation, inter-European Union tradeability in milk quotas.

Dr. Strang: May I remind the Minister that, under the common agricultural policy, we spend more than £3,000 million a year on support for the dairy industry? Although much of that money is spent wastefully, just 3 per cent. is spent on subsidies for school milk. Would it not be a disgrace if, as part of the public expenditure review, the Government cut that spending?

Mr. Hogg: I am bound to say that, applied in such a context, the word "disgrace" is simply absurd.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I seek a firm commitment from my right hon. and learned Friend? Does he agree that the United Kingdom has some of the finest grassland in the European Community, and that that grassland is ideal for dairy farming and milk production? Will he give an assurance that it is Government policy to increase the milk quota for United Kingdom dairy farmers for as long as quotas exist in the European Community—bearing in mind that we are not self-sufficient in milk?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right: we are not self-sufficient in milk, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have already given.
I had the pleasure of visiting Cheshire last Friday, and of meeting many dairy farmers there. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the productivity and skills of dairy workers in his county. As for quotas, if it were possible, we would indeed wish to secure a larger quota, but when I ask myself whether we are likely to achieve it, the answer is "Probably not"—hence the importance that we attach to persuading the European Union to allow the leasing of quotas across EU national frontiers.

Industrial Crops

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure that the United Kingdom obtains its share of acreage agreed for industrial crops within the framework of the Blair House agreement. [38934]

Mr. Baldry: We have made it clear that adjustments to area payments rather than quantitative limits are the better approach.

Mr. Jones: Have we not missed the boat, because France and Germany have already increased their production up to the limits set in the Blair House agreement? Is that not a disgusting state of affairs for the European Community?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The European Commission is taking, or considering, action against states such as France that have taken a number of steps to encourage biodiesels by, for instance, allowing pilot plant status for commercial plants, illegal tax breaks and illegal subsidies to farmers. I think that ours is a far better approach.

Countryside Policies

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to stimulate prosperity in the countryside, with special reference to small farmers in south Leicestershire. [38936]

Mr. Boswell: The White Paper on rural England was launched jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 17 October. It contains a number of initiatives aimed at stimulating prosperity in the countryside generally.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that there are many small and medium-sized farmers in the attractive countryside of south Leicestershire in my constituency of Blaby. He will also know that, over the past three years, they have benefited from a real increase of approximately 60 per cent. in average farming income. Will he go further, and explain how those farmers will benefit from the provisions of the White Paper?

Mr. Boswell: I know my hon. Friend's constituency well. Some 12 years ago, I represented the farmers there on behalf of the National Farmers Union; they are splendid people.
The purpose of our policies is to benefit all farmers, large and small. Our policies take them all into account. The purpose of the White Paper, along with the documents that we have already published—for example, those on farm tourism and on diversification—is to stimulate the rural economy; the policy is based on agriculture, but involves all other kinds of commercial activity. It is also intended to sustain employment for the benefit of the nation generally.

Mr. Morley: In what way does it help the rural economy for the recent White Paper to give clear encouragement to county councils to sell smallholdings? Does the Minister not recognise the importance of such smallholdings in enabling many young farmers to reach the first rung of the agricultural ladder? If they are sold, they will simply be bought by larger neighbouring farms, increasing the loss of farmers from the land.

Mr. Boswell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take away the autonomy of county councils, many of which are presently under Labour control. Things have moved on, although the Labour party may not have noticed it. We have new farm tenancy legislation which provides many more opportunities for entrants to the industry. It will be for county councils to decide how best to use or reuse the resources that are currently locked up in farm smallholdings.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the Minister seeks to stimulate further agriculture in Leicestershire or anywhere else, will he say whether he agrees with the EU budget that has just been published, which states that expenditure on agriculture for 1996 will be 34 per cent. more than last year? That is an increase of 34 per cent. on £9,000 million. Is it not sad that, on a day when Ministers are considering cuts in spending, the EU proposes to spend a third more on agriculture next year than it did last year?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend takes a particular view of the evolution of the common agricultural policy within the European budget, and I would not necessarily share all his views on that. My right hon. and learned Friend


the Minister has encouraged the publication of the document on CAP reform which we recently presented and which proposes to set up the most radical agenda possible for long-term reform of the common agricultural policy. We shall vigorously advocate that among our colleagues in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38951]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ms Eagle: If the disclosure of the amounts that are earned in parliamentary consultancies is such an unimportant detail, can the Prime Minister say why up to 100 Conservative Members are threatening to resign if the House forces them to share that information with their constituents? Is that why he will vote for secrecy? What do Conservative Members have to hide?

The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I say to her that she should not believe all the nonsense that she reads in some newspapers about the proposed actions of my hon. Friends or, indeed, about anything else. The Nolan report is extremely important. I set up the committee because I believed that there was a problem that needed to be looked at dispassionately. It has produced its report and the Select Committee has examined it. In a number of ways, the Select Committee has gone beyond the Nolan report. It has done so with my support, and I look forward to Parliament approving its recommendations.

Mr. Lord: Thanks to the national lottery and the millennium fund, there is now a great deal of money available for good works. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could set ourselves two very worthwhile targets to achieve by the year 2000? They are, first, by that time every inner city ought to be a decent place for people to live in and secondly, every secondary school ought to have access to a good, proper cricket square.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend plays to my instincts, as I think he knows, in this case. There is no doubt that the national lottery has exceeded the success that even we had forecast for it. It has already raised in excess of £1 billion for good causes and a very large number of organisations are now able to put in place facilities that millions of ordinary people will enjoy and would not have been able to enjoy but for the lottery. The point about the lottery is that, because of it, some areas of importance to our national life that are never likely to receive total priority in any public expenditure round will now have a guaranteed stream of future income for many years ahead, and millions of people will benefit from that.

Mr. Blair: Having set up Nolan and having agreed to implement it, what possible justification will the Prime Minister give when he comes to the House on Monday, along with the Cabinet and Government, and votes down

its key recommendation—the simple honest requirement that Members of Parliament who have outside financial interests that are connected with their being Members of Parliament should disclose the amounts that they earn from them? Just what do he and his party have to hide?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear, when I established Nolan, that I thought that there was a matter that needed independent investigation. Lord Nolan did that. He said, when he replied, that he thought that there were matters that needed some further clarification. The Select Committee has done that. I have made it clear throughout that I support the broad thrust of what the Nolan committee recommended and I have said so on more than one occasion. I still hold to that.
Nolan made 55 recommendations, 45 to the Government, almost all of which are already being implemented, and I thoroughly agree with that, and 10 recommendations addressed to the House. The Select Committee has accepted nine of those, and has gone further than the Nolan committee in respect of the 10th, and I agree with that.
What is most important in the midst of this is the Select Committee's proposal to ban paid advocacy. That is entirely right, I support it, but if we do that, the income that hon. Members earn from other activities explicitly approved by Parliament seems to me to be a matter between them and the Inland Revenue tax inspectors.

Mr. Blair: This has nothing to do with some detailed consideration of Nolan. It is to do with the squalid monetary interest of the Conservative party. That was Nolan's key recommendation. If now, in weakness, the Prime Minister goes back on his word to implement the report that he commissioned, it will leave a stain on his prime ministership and on his Government that will not be removed until this rotten Administration is swept from office.

The Prime Minister: I think that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are serious matters about Nolan that deserve serious consideration, not the sort of short-term party political wrangling that we have just heard from him. On the substantive point, this is a serious matter for Parliament, with long-term implications, and it is a shame that he cannot understand that. I do not favour a wholly professional House staffed entirely by hon. Members who are professional politicians and nothing else. That is the route that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party would wish to lead us down. He would then, no doubt, have his party thought police telling Labour Members what to do and issuing statements on their behalf, as he did last week. That is not the route for this House. He may find some short-term advantage in the line that he takes, but what he is proposing is bad for the future of the House of Commons.

Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Blair: The Nolan committee is not stopping people from having outside interests. It simply says that we should be open and honest about them. The Prime Minister is a man saying today what he knows to be


wrong, and the question for him is this: when is he going to have the courage to stand up to his party and tell it what is right?

The Prime Minister: We have gone further than Lord Nolan had on the matters that are undesirable. Rather than say simply, "Disclose income," we have banned the things that we believe to be wrong. That is what I propose to do. The Select Committee is right in banning paid advocacy. If it is wrong, it should not be done. If it is right, it should not be impeded for party political reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do.
Lord Nolan considered whether hon. Members' assets and income should be disclosed and that would, of course, include not only matters such as directors' fees—[Interruption.] This is an important matter to the future of the House of Commons and it deserves to be seriously considered by the House, not just treated as Opposition Members are treating it.
Lord Nolan considered the matter. He concluded, and I quote from the Nolan report:
No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that"—
that is, disclosure—
might be necessary.
Parliamentary rules already require all outside interests to be entered in the Register. That will continue. It will be published more regularly. The substantive point is clear. If it is wrong, it should not be done and the Select Committee proposes to ban the things that are wrong. If it is right, it should not be impeded, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

Mr. King: May I correct my right hon. Friend in one respect, in that it was not Lord Nolan on his own but 10 members under his chairmanship who considered these matters and described in the report whether we should recommend a ban on paid advocacy? We said specifically at that time that we doubted whether it was practicable or whether it would be acceptable to the House. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an immediate ban on paid advocacy goes significantly further than Lord Nolan and his committee recommended? It goes to the heart of the issue of public concern, and should therefore be strongly supported.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and I sought to make that point a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is the case, but for his own party reasons, he and his colleagues are deliberately distorting the central aspect to be determined.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38952]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: No one would accuse the Prime Minister of being a professional politician. If hon. Members have outside consultancies, what is the Prime Minister's personal objection to them declaring how much they get? Why does he object to that transparency?

The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman why. I believe that it is right for the House to know what

interests Members of Parliament have. It is right that they should register the nature of those activities, as is proposed, so that the House knows about them. It is right that things which are wrong should be banned. Beyond that, hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as others.

Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the grateful thanks of those of my constituents who have written to me in recent days to describe the misery and torment that they and their families have suffered because of the activities of the Rev. Moon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's extraordinary court decision is yet another example of the contempt with which some members of the judiciary seem to treat the views of the House and of the general public?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to refuse the Rev. Moon entry into the country. I do not believe that his presence here would be conducive to the public good. If the Rev. Moon decides to make representations, of course they will be considered.

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38953]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: As recently as 23 May, the Prime Minister assured my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he favoured greater transparency in the affairs of Members of Parliament. He is now saying that he will vote for more secrecy. When will the Prime Minister, with all the dignity and authority of his office, lead the Tory party from the front rather than the rear?

The Prime Minister: We all know the lines that the Opposition Front Bench have given to the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we are making much tougher and much more transparent the interests of Members of Parliament and we are banning the things that are wrong. That is the key point. If it is wrong, it should not be done, and the Select Committee is right to suggest a ban. The hon. Gentleman referred to 23 May. My activities and views have not changed. I foreshadowed them clearly and at some length in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on 22 May, to which he has not yet replied.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news that no one in Somerset need wait more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment? Does that not show the success of the Government's health reforms? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to drop his objection to fundholding?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the partisan proposals of the Opposition to turn back the clock on the NHS reforms are to be regretted, given the clear evidence of the success of those reforms. More patients are being treated, they have greater opportunities for treatment and they are treated more speedily. The Opposition's plans to scrap GP fundholding in the face both of the overwhelming evidence of its success and the opposition of GPs who are providing a better service because of it will be unacceptable to people up and down the country.

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38954]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sutcliffe: As Tory Members of Parliament fight to save their second and third jobs, many people in my constituency want their first jobs. Is it not true that if Members of Parliament act as consultants, the public have the right to know whether they earn £50 or £5,000?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to touch upon the important issue of unemployment. However, he might more usefully have mentioned that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. from its peak—[Interruption.] it is interesting to note that Labour Members do not like hearing about the fall in unemployment—yet two years ago the then Leader of the Opposition raised the matter week after week. It is months since Labour Members have raised it, because they do not like the fact that it is going down in this country because of our policies, yet it is going up in other countries that follow socialist policies.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We need to get on with the business question.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Debate on the second report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Motion relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
Motion relating to Select Committees.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. First, I want to ask him about the motion on Select Committees that we shall be debating on Tuesday. Will he provide us with relevant information so that we can consider in advance what will happen with the Select Committee that will have the responsibility for monitoring the new Department of the Office of Public Service? Will he make it clear that the Committee will be able to monitor all the activities of the Deputy Prime Minister?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is nodding—has passed all its stages in the other place, that there is no opposition to it and that there is co-operation among all those involved in the issue? As the House is not short of parliamentary time over the next few days, will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time to allow the House to reach a final decision on the Bill which, as I said, has widespread support? He would not be creating a precedent by doing so and I am sure that the Bill would be welcomed on both sides of the House and outside it.
Finally, what has happened to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, and why? Surely the House should have a full statement about the Bill, especially bearing in mind the amount of time spent on it in both Houses. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall, that on every occasion during the past parliamentary year that an hon. Member has raised the issue of domestic violence and the women and children who are victims of it, the Minister responding has said that we should wait for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill? What will Ministers say now? Will the Bill come back to this House?

Mr. Newton: On the Select Committee proposals, which I said that I hope that we can discuss on Tuesday,

I hope to be tabling the relevant motion later today. It will make clear the terms of reference that we propose for the Select Committee with which the hon. Lady's question was especially concerned.
As for the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, I refer the hon. Lady—as I recently referred the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—to what I said last week:
It has been established over many years that the time available for private Members' Bills is set at the beginning of the parliamentary Session by a decision of the House."—[Official Report, 26 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 1154.]
That remains the case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that I have met him, as requested, but had to explain that I saw no basis on which the Government could make special arrangements favouring one private Member's Bill over others. I should say, however, that I am extremely sympathetic to the Bill. I hope that it will prove possible for it to be passed speedily in the next Session of Parliament, given the extent of the agreement that is said to exist and which I hope does exist.
As for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has just answered a parliamentary question saying that the Lord Chancellor has listened to the concerns expressed about the Bill and is considering them. He goes on to say that the timetable is such, however, that it is now impossible to make further progress this Session and that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will continue to work on the Bill with a view to bringing it back before Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. Roger Sims: When my right hon. Friend introduces Monday's debate on the Select Committee's report, will he explain how he reconciles the terms of the first resolution, which appears to preclude parliamentary advisers from speaking in the House on matters of which they have knowledge, with paragraph 22 of the report, which states that the Committee is not proposing such a ban?

Mr. Newton: I shall of course seek to cover that point in my speech on Monday. I can certainly confirm that the purpose of the Committee and the intention of the resolution is as described in the paragraph of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. The Committee specifically made it clear that it did not wish to deprive the House of informed contributions to debates initiated by others under those circumstances.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: Does the Leader of the House realise that women suffering domestic violence will be very disappointed by the answer that they have heard this afternoon and that, in fact, they will be very angry? Why should they have to wait when the matter has been before both Houses and there is time for us to discuss it this Session? Is not the Leader of the House aware that a majority of hon. Members wish the Bill to proceed?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have already said on the matter but, as this is an important part of the background to it, I will say that the Bill was introduced as an uncontentious Bill. It proceeded through most of its stages, thus appearing to confirm that it was uncontentious. It then manifestly became contentious, which changed the basis on which it had originally been introduced.

Sir Peter Emery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that John Sweetman, Companion of the Order of the Bath, has retired after 41 years' service of great distinction to the House, as set out partially in early-day motion 1557?
[That this House notes the retirement on 31st October of Mr. John Sweetman, CB, TD, formerly Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees; recognises his unique contribution over 41 years of service to the House in facilitating the parliamentary process at Westminster and in fostering the development of parliamentary government abroad; and expresses its appreciation of his pragmatic advice and good humour which will be missed by honourable Members and colleagues alike.]
Irrespective of the early-day motion, will my right hon. Friend consider finding a short time, perhaps at the start of public business in the near future, to enable the House to pay tribute to John Sweetman's work?

Mr. Newton: I shall give some thought to my right hon. Friend's latter point, but I shall no doubt be advised about setting precedents. Leaving aside the question of whether it is possible, I can tell my right hon. Friend, although it is probably indiscreet of me to do so, that I sought to find a way to add my name to that early-day motion, only to be advised that it was unheard of for Ministers to add their names to early-day motions. I therefore refrained from doing so. The reason why I wanted to add my name is that I would wish wholeheartedly to endorse the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to Mr. Sweetman.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I associate myself with the request made by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)? I am pleased that the Leader of the House is going to consider whether the House can pay tribute to Mr. Sweetman. Opposition Members remember him not only for his ability—he was very helpful to many Labour Members—but for his good humour. He not only assisted many of us in the House but gave valuable advice to many Parliaments overseas. We shall certainly miss him after his 41 years' service to the House.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, would also want to associate yourself with those words. Even if I am unable to produce a positive outcome of my consideration, I very much hope that Mr. Sweetman will take what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by myself, and the warm way in which it has been received in the House, as a tribute in itself.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the role of the family in British society? He would probably agree that we have reached a watershed: should the role of the family be enhanced, or should it be undermined, which certainly seems to be happening in public debate? Does he not agree that it would be helpful to all parties concerned if the House met to debate that important issue so that we knew exactly where we stood?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, I shall give consideration, as always, to what my hon. Friend says, but I certainly cannot hold out hopes of such a debate before prorogation.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Leader of the House advise me on the best way of raising the

procurement of military ambulances for the United Kingdom armed forces as a matter of urgency? He will be aware that there is a good deal of concern among the management and work forces of the Rover Group and Marshall SP in my constituency about the rumours that that very important purchase is to go to Steyer of Austria.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to comment on the outcome of any particular procurement exercise. The hon. Lady will know that such exercises take place within national and international rules, as I think I observed last week. However, I shall bring her question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to congratulate the BBC on 50 years of "Today in Parliament", as well as the editor, Mr. Geoffrey Sumner, and all the members of the team who produce it day after day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely splendid if the broadsheets started to carry proper parliamentary reports, as they used to?

Mr. Newton: I very much hope that those responsible will look very carefully at the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. As to the first part, I am sure that his words will be welcomed by those who work so hard to produce the programme, although not necessarily by all those who attend on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Given the fact that on Monday we have the Tory snouts in the trough debate, and as the Prime Minister has now changed what was going to be a free vote into a test of his credibility, since every member of the Government will be expected to go into the Lobby behind him, is the Leader of the House prepared to comment on whether it would be a resigning matter should the Prime Minister be defeated?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated the view that he takes of the Select Committee's recommendations, which, as it happens—it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman—is exactly the same view that I take. It is especially important to note that the recommendations go so far beyond the recommendations of the Nolan committee itself, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), a member of the Nolan committee, said. That is a very important factor. As for myself, I obviously very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends of all kinds will support motions which I have tabled on behalf of the Select Committee and which I believe are right.

Mr. Piers Merchant: In view of today's Court of Appeal decision in the case of Mr. Newbery, the 82-year-old man who shot at a persistent burglar in self-defence, will my right hon. Friend consider finding parliamentary time to debate the apparent conflict that has arisen between criminal and civil law in matters of self-defence?

Mr. Newton: I shall of course bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who will no doubt wish to study the judgment to which my hon. Friend refers. I recall, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend made some observations on that general point some weeks ago.

Mr. Keith Hill: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1556?
[That this House condemns unreservedly the show trials and death sentences passed upon Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-accused; calls upon the British Government to use all practical means at its disposal both directly and through the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to reverse these sentences; and calls upon Nigeria's military rulers to commute the death penalty.]
Is the Leader of the House aware of the sense of outrage felt on both sides of the House at the death sentences passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues following a mockery of a trial in Nigeria? Is he further aware of the wide perception that the Government's verbal condemnation of the Nigerian military Government is quite inadequate and that a new and tougher Commonwealth sanctions initiative is necessary? Therefore, will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary attends the House to listen to hon. Members' views in advance of the Commonwealth summit at the end of next week?

Mr. Newton: I shall bring my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's latter request. As to the principal issue, I repeat in quite strong terms that we deplore the death sentences passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants following what we regard as a flawed judicial process. We understand that the sentences are subject to review by the provisional ruling council, and we urge that council to commute them.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the roads programme? Does he realise the concern that exists in Worcestershire about rumours that Her Majesty's Government are thinking of adopting the Labour party's policy and abandoning the roads programme in total? That would have very serious implications for the Worcester western bypass and the Wyre Piddle bypass in my constituency, and the Broadway bypass in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).

Mr. Newton: If I understand my hon. Friend aright, he is inviting me to speculate on the outcome of the public expenditure round. I hope that he will understand that I do not feel able to do so.

Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1539?
[That this House urges the Home Secretary to transfer Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien from Whitemoor Prison to prisons in either Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic in view of their compelling compassionate circumstances. ]
Will the Leader of the House suggest to the Home Secretary that he should make a statement, I hope early next week, announcing the transfer of both men to prisons in either the north of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland? Not only is that in the interests of humanitarian justice and compassion, but it would help to redeem the somewhat tattered reputation of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring those remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is the Government's long-established

policy not to agree to prisoners transferring to another jurisdiction, except in very exceptional circumstances, if the result will be a substantial reduction in the time served. That general policy applies to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I warmly associate myself with the remarks made on both sides of the House about my near constituent and Ealing resident Mr. John Sweetman? I ask my right hon. Friend: could the House debate the work of the Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow health agency next week in order to investigate the suggestion by some bureaucrat that the breast diseases unit at Ealing hospital should be transferred to hospitals nearer to central London many miles away, which would be inaccessible to my constituents? We cannot allow that to happen: the unit must remain at Ealing hospital.

Mr. Newton: I note, and I am sure that everyone will agree with, my hon. Friend's earlier remarks about John Sweetman. As to his latter comments, the obvious and proper course is for me to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary.

Mr. John Heppell: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate about the monopolies that are being created within the brewing industry? As a result of recent mergers, two companies—Scottish Courage and Bass—control more than 50 per cent. of sales. That has caused anxiety and concern among local breweries, such as the Home Brewery, which is the only brewery still operating in Greater Nottingham.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are established procedures for considering the kind of complaint that he makes at the Office of Fair Trading and, where appropriate, at the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will want to consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Has my right hon. Friend noticed an article that appeared in The Times of 1 November under the heading "High Streets doomed"? Does he agree that the allegations in the article are serious? Does he consider it appropriate that time should be allowed for a debate on the future of the high streets in order to highlight both the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking and what further action might be appropriate in order to encourage retail sales in our high streets?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly give consideration to that request.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on security arrangements at 10 Downing street? On the assumption that the statement would be something more than, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, we are the softest touch of all," will he explain how people without passes will be restricted from wandering round 10 Downing street, and will he comment on the rumour that the intruder was not noticed because the place was simply full of people who did not know why they were there anyway?

Mr. Newton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question as, according to the accounts that I have seen, the intruder must have passed by the side of my office.
I can say only that the incident to which he refers is being investigated, and I am sure that the investigation will be thorough.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As it has been acknowledged since Adam Smith that capital taxation drives capital abroad, attacks enterprise and destroys jobs, and now that it is increasingly acknowledged that lower capital taxation could produce rises in tax yield and that the abolition of capital taxation could increase the yield of other taxes by more than the cut would seem to cost, can we have a debate on the effects of capital taxation? Would not it expose the truth about the Labour party—that Labour simply does not know what policies will make Britain fit to compete in the global economy?

Mr. Newton: I would have thought that the Budget debate, which is now less than a month away, might provide such an opportunity for my hon. Friend. As for the rest, however, he appears to be inviting me to pass from speculation on the public expenditure round to the other half of the Budget, and I will not do that.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that, although there is supposed to be a free vote on Monday, clearly it is a three-line Whip for the Government, which makes a mockery of the so-called free vote? Are we right to conclude that, when we look through the Division list on Tuesday we shall find that not a single Minister, however junior, voted against the line put forward today by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier. I certainly hope that everyone will feel able to support the motions that I have tabled on behalf of the Select Committee.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on social services on Lancashire, where the county council is currently destroying care in the community by completely mismanaging its social services budget? Is he aware that many elderly patients are being driven into county residential homes while the private nursing sector is being driven out of business by the county council?

Mr. Newton: I well understand why my hon. Friend raised those points. Similar concerns are being raised in many places, including my own county. I shall certainly bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: As we are not allowed a debate on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill next week, may we have a debate on the protection of families against domestic violence and child sexual abuse? As the so-called controversial clauses are already enacted in the law of Scotland, why do not the Government for once stand up to a handful of extremist Back Benchers?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot add to what I said before, but I must underline the fact that the Government sought to advance the Bill on the original understanding that it was uncontentious. Clearly, having become contentious, it requires different parliamentary handling.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time as soon as possible to discuss waste in

local government? It would give me the opportunity to discuss two yawning examples in Lancashire. The first involves the Labour-controlled county council, where the director of education has sent out a letter trying to frighten governors and parents about next year's education settlement when he does not know any of the figures. Also, the leader of Labour-controlled Preston council, Valerie Wise, ousted the town clerk, which is costing more than £1,000 per week. Even though Valerie Wise was this week deselected in her own ward, the town clerk remains out of office.

Mr. Newton: It is clear that my hon. Friends believe that there is a good deal to be investigated in Lancashire. Apart from the point that I have already undertaken to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I will bring the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House intercede with Scottish members of the Front Bench to arrange a debate on the state of the funding of the court system in Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this morning, Falkirk court had to abandon its business because the procurator fiscal could not supply a member of staff to prosecute? At least 10 cases were abandoned, and people on criminal charges walked free from court because there were not enough staff. Obviously there is a serious problem in Scottish courts with rising crime and the underfunding of the court system.

Mr. Newton: I was unaware of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described, but I have no doubt that they and the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I too ask for a debate on the Government's road-building programme, which would give the opportunity to discuss a dispute concerning the M5 between the Highways Agency and its agents and Tilbury Douglas, which has indirectly affected the jobs of about 100 people from P. J. Burkes, a building contractor in my constituency? I understand that the problem can be resolved easily and quickly, and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend asked the appropriate Transport Minister to ensure that that is done as soon as possible.

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary concerning the safety of people who are returned to Nigeria? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to make a statement to the House, particularly in respect of Abdul Onibiyo, who was deported from this country last week by immigration officials? His family have been left here, but are subject to deportation orders.
Mr. Onibiyo was taken to Lagos airport and handed over to local security officials, but he has not been heard of or seen since. That situation is causing great distress to the trade union that supported Mr. Onibiyo in his campaign against deportation and, obviously, to his


family. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the high commission in Lagos is contacted immediately to ensure that Abdul Onibiyo is in a place of safety in Lagos?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an immediate statement, but I undertake to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of the important situation in Nigeria.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the House adjourned at 8.31 pm last night after a one and a half hour debate on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in which a large number of hon. Members wanted to speak, to make constituency points. When so much time is available, what is the point of truncating the business of the House? If time is available, could the House debate the location of the next English national stadium, about which concern is felt on both sides of the House? The idea that it should be in Wembley, organised by a company that could not run a whelk stall, seems scandalous. Hon. Members in all parts of the House should have an input.

Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I might say gently to the hon. Gentleman that there were recent debates on sport and on the national lottery, in either of which he could have raised those points. As to the first part of his question, arrangements for last night's debate were made through the usual channels for the convenience of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but part of the problem was that the preceding business was of unpredictable duration.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As it seems that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill will be reintroduced in some form in the next Session—although some believe that it should have been fully dealt with in this Session—could not the same be done for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill or for another Bill that would alter the Disability Discrimination Bill to embody the principles of the former Bill? As with the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill secured overwhelming support on Second Reading in all parts of the House, and there is massive support outside the House for its introduction.

Mr. Newton: Personally, I certainly share the hope that, if the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill has the general agreement that it is said to have, it will be possible for it to make rapid progress in the next Session. That is not something that I can determine as a member of the Government. On the latter point, the hon.-Gentleman has every reason to be aware that, even if the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill has become non-controversial, his Bill certainly has not and the same considerations do not apply.

Mr. Elliot Morley: May I welcome the Leader of the House's comments about the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? I do not know whether he is aware that I was one of the people who drafted the compromise that went to the House of Lords, with help from Home Office officials, which I and my hon. Friend appreciated.
Despite agreements and assurances from all

parties involved at that stage, when the Bill went to the other place, those agreements were reneged upon. It is clear that there are buffers and duffers in the other place who will never pass that measure unless the Government give it some time and support, which they have the power to do.

Mr. Newton: I cannot comment further on the question of providing Government time, which has repeatedly come up in this Session. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I was not a party to those discussions so I am not in a position to comment, except to say that I think that the way in which he put them was aggressive, to put it mildly. On my reading of the proceedings in the other place, some points were raised that even the proponents of the Bill acknowledged needed to be considered.

Mr. George Foulkes: With regard to next Monday's debate, is the Leader of the House aware that I heard him on the radio saying that he chaired the Select Committee as a Member of Parliament, not as a member of the Government? Will he therefore tell us what discussions he had with the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet before producing his final Chairman's report to the Select Committee?

Mr. Newton: I received representations from many colleagues in their capacity as Members of Parliament, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to give details at the Dispatch Box of conversations that I have had in the corridors of this place.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We shall return to that issue on Monday.
In view of the reply that the Leader of the House gave me about the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, may I press him further? I am not sure that it is right for a reply about the future of the Bill to be given by written answer in the possibly unprecedented situation of a Government Bill completing all its stages and then being withdrawn at the last minute.
I have two specific questions. What happened to make the Bill contentious? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill did not change, but that what changed was the pressure from some of the extremists in his party? Secondly, what will happen to the victims of domestic violence in the interim before a new Bill is introduced? Is he aware that dropping the Bill at this stage is not in the interests of children who may be suffering from abuse? The Bill made new provision for the removal from a home of a suspected abuser, rather than requiring social services to remove a child who is being abused. It also made it easier to arrest those in breach of a court injunction.
As more damage will be done before the Bill can be brought back, can the Leader of the House say what the Government intend to do and tell us the time scale for the reintroduction of the Bill?

Mr. Newton: Not at present. I cannot add to what has been said this afternoon, which is that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will continue to work on the Bill with a view to bringing it back before Parliament as soon as possible.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that what Ministers say is not a matter for you. You have made that clear, as have your predecessors, on a number of occasions. If a Minister, be it the Prime Minister as in this case, or any other Minister, has made a remark about a Member that does not happen to be true, one would have thought that, once that had been brought to his attention, he would come to the House and say so.
On Tuesday, in reply to my question about French nuclear tests, the Prime Minister said:
the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is".—[Official Report, 31 October 1995; Vol. 265, c. 96.].
I make no reflection whatever on CND. I have a great deal of time for the organisation, certainly when it sticks to the particular business for which it came into existence. However, the fact is that I was never a member. I checked with CND in case I was on its membership list. Not surprisingly, the answer was no. I then telephoned No. 10 on two occasions. I spoke to a private secretary, who was very courteous and said that he would look into the matter.
On further occasions yesterday when I tried to speak to the private secretary, he was always out. So I went across to No. 10. I was allowed through on my Member's pass and I delivered a note to the door at 5.10 pm. I have not heard since from No. 10. It may not be a matter of great importance to you, for all I know, Madam Speaker, but the Prime Minister must know by now that what he said on Tuesday was not the position.
Surely, just because the right hon. Gentleman is Prime Minister does not mean that he should not come and correct a falsehood that he said to the House, I am sure inadvertently. What he said does not happen to be true and I see no reason why the Prime Minister should not come here and say so.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has corrected the mistaken impression himself. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity of so doing. I have often cautioned the House and all Members in it, whether they are Ministers or Back Benchers, that we have tremendous privileges here in freedom of speech and in speaking out, but those privileges have to be tempered with responsibility. Before we make accusations about each other across the Floor of the House, we all ought to get our facts right. It would enhance our debates here if we did that, and had more respect for the individual than I find has been shown generally in our debates in recent times.

Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 19 July I put a series of questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the issue of the headlamp scheme. At the end of the Session I received replies that said that I would receive answers on 16 October. On 16 and 17 October I

received some answers. Eight of the answers said that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), had asked the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to me. I still have not had answers to those questions.
Do we have a right to answers to our questions, or can they simply be lost in an executive agency? Or is the Education Minister so uncertain about whether the Prime Minister will announce education policy himself that he is unable to give me answers?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Questions must be answered within the rules of the House. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with me, I shall be pleased to take it up on his behalf and see what I can do to be helpful.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked you yesterday whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) had yet written to you to substantiate the allegations that he made earlier in the week. Are you able to tell us yet whether you have received any such letter?

Madam Speaker: I have not received anything from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but I am informed by him that a letter is on its way.

BILLS PRESENTED

WASTE PREVENTION

Mr. Elliot Morley, supported by Ms Joan Ruddock, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Gary Waller and Mrs. Margaret Ewing, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to investigate what measures are needed to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; to take such steps as they consider appropriate in order to achieve that end; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 7 November and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

CHILD LABOUR

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, supported by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Neil Gerrard and Mr. John Austin-Walker, presented a Bill to give effect to Articles 1 and 2 of the 1973 International Labour Convention No. 138 concerning the minimum age for admission to employment by making it unlawful to employ children under the age of sixteen in a way that is inconsistent with their fullest physical and mental development; to require the Secretary of State to establish a system of regulation to ensure that the law concerning child labour is complied with; and to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament progress towards the elimination of child labour in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 7 November and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Parliamentary Procedure

[Relevant document: The Eighth Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1994–95, on 'Sitting Hours Reform' (HC491).]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That—
(1) Standing Order (Consolidation bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:
(1) In this order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill which falls to be considered by the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills).
(2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.
(3) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading, or for the third reading, of a consolidation bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(4) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(2) Standing Order (Law Commission bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:
(1) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a bill to which Standing Order (Consolidation bills) applies, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

(a) the House otherwise orders, or
(b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(2) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (1) above shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(3) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (1) above.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(1) Standing Order (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills) below shall have effect:
(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill—

(a) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or
(b) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise. 
(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.
(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—

(1) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) below shall have effect:
(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.
(2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
(3) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved, the instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, unless—

(a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument shall not so stand referred, or
(b) the instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(4) Where a Member has given notice of—

(a) a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument, or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(b) a motion that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure,
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to such a committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(5) Each committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours (or, in the case of an instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours) after the commencement of those proceedings; and the committee shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put.
(6) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this order, in relation to any instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (5) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon and such question may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(2) In paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) for the words "statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures" there shall be substituted the words "instruments (whether or not in draft)".
(3) Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure) shall be entitled "Delegated legislation (negative procedure)"; and at the end of the said Standing Order there shall be added the words "or be disapproved, or words to that effect".
(4) Standing Order (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) below shall have effect:

"(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours


after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).
(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
(5) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(b) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
(6) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)) shall be entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)"; in paragraph (1)(a) of the said Standing Order for lines 5 to 7 there shall be substituted the words "of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the"; in paragraph (1)(b) of the said Standing Order for the words "a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument" there shall be substituted the words "an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order)"; and the words "or draft instrument" shall be omitted wherever in the said Standing Order they occur.
(7) For paragraph (2)(e) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

"(e) motions relating to instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation));".
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(1) Standing Order (House not to sit on certain Fridays) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall not sit on ten Fridays in each Session to be appointed by the House.
(2) If a motion to appoint such Fridays is made by a Minister of the Crown the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(3) At its rising on the Thursday before each of the Fridays so appointed the House shall stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise.
(4) Unless the House shall have resolved to adjourn otherwise than from the previous Thursday to the following Monday, the Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

(a) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and
(b) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,
between eleven o'clock and three o'clock."
(2) Standing Order (Wednesday sittings) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past nine o'clock and shall between that hour and two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) Save as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the subjects for debate on the said motion shall be chosen by ballot under arrangements made by the Speaker; and no subject shall be raised without notice.
(3) On the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be "matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment".
(4) On not more than three Wednesdays in each Session to be appointed by the Speaker, the subject or subjects for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

(5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised before half-past twelve o'clock, and not more than three between that hour and two o'clock.
(6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at two o'clock shall lapse and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon."
(3) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays " and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted; and in the proviso to paragraph (7) of the said Standing Order, after the word "o'clock" in line 57, there shall be inserted the words "in the evening".
(4) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall be repealed; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted.
(5) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted.
(6) In paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee) the word "and" in line 4 shall be omitted and after the word "Commission" in line 7 there shall be inserted the words "and

(c) to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such Wednesdays as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (4) of Standing Order (Wednesday sittings)".
(7) Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Periodic adjournments) below shall have effect:

"When a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, and may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
(8) Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Consolidated Fund Bills) below shall have effect:

"When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
(9) In paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No: 14 (Exempted business) the words "or any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill" shall be omitted.
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order (Short speeches) shall have effect:

"The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker


has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith."
May I inform the House that I have selected for debate amendments (a), (b) and (c) to motion No. 4. At the conclusion of the joint debate on the motions and the amendments, I will put successively the Questions on motions Nos. 1 to 3. When we come to motion No. 4, I will invite the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to move amendment (a). If it is not agreed to, amendment (b) will fall. If amendment (a) is agreed to, I will invite the hon. Gentleman to move amendment (b). Once the House has taken a decision on the principle underlying amendments (a) and (b), amendment (c) will fall. Once the amendments have been disposed of, I will put the Question on motions Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your explanation of the sequence of events. But am I not right in thinking that amendment (a) and amendment (b), which is a consequential amendment, and amendment (c) are not necessarily mutually exclusive? All three amendments have in common the principle of additional time, or retaining time, for private Members' motions, but if (a) and (b) are carried, there will be four hours for such motions on Wednesdays and if (c) is carried there will be additional time on Mondays. Surely amendment (c) should taken as well, even if (a) and (b) are not carried?

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is rather more than a procedural motion. Of course, I understand that your view is prescribed by the rules of the House, but it is a matter of great import and I do not believe that the amendments are interchangeable. I hope that you will seriously reconsider the matter, because many of us believe that decisions affecting the House are being taken without proper consultation.

Madam Speaker: In the light of what hon. Members have said, I am prepared to look again at the amendments. We shall proceed with the debate, I shall reconsider the matter and give my decision as soon as I can.

Mr. Newton: It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to the other four motions on related topics while you, Madam Speaker, are considering the other matters that have just been mentioned.
Last December, the House approved a far-reaching package of reforms of the procedures of the House—some elements were expressed in Sessional Orders and others in understandings reached between the Government and the Opposition through the usual channels and recorded in a written answer—which gave effect to recommendations made by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House in 1992. I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who chaired that Committee. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today due to ill health.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), with whom the agreement was negotiated. I should also like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the

Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is present this afternoon and is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which has reported in such positive terms on the experiment that we conducted this Session.
Our debate last December showed that there were reservations in several parts of the House—eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in a rare but memorable contribution—about the substance of the proposals. I believe—at least, I hope—that many of those reservations have now been overcome, and that the experiment is generally considered to have been a substantial success.
I shall deal first with those elements of the reforms that depend on "best endeavours" and agreements through the usual channels rather than on Standing Orders. Voluntary timetabling of Bills, which is of fundamental importance to the success of the reforms as a whole, has worked well in practice. My perception, which I hope the hon. Member for Dewsbury will confirm, is that the Opposition have had the time they felt appropriate to debate the issues to which they attached importance—at least in general terms.
At the same time, the Government's legislative programme has made progress without the House being kept up late and without the use of measures such as the guillotine. We are not proposing to put those arrangements in Standing Orders. This year's experience has confirmed the view that I formed in the course of our discussions last year: there is no sustainable halfway house between a voluntary agreement reached through the usual channels and something which, to all intents and purposes, is a guillotine.
We have achieved a substantial reduction in late sittings. The average time of rising during the experiment has been significantly earlier—hon. Members who want the details will find them in the Procedure Committee's report—and the occasions on which the House has sat late into the night have been very few: only nine of the 131 sittings during the relevant period lasted beyond midnight. An evening which ends with a vote at 11.30 pm is now regarded as a late night; for the first two Parliaments in which I was present, that would have been regarded as an early night.
We have also succeeded in keeping Thursdays almost entirely free of contentious business after 7 pm, which has been of material assistance to hon. Members when planning their constituency business on Friday and over the weekend.
I have also been able to give the House much earlier notification of recess dates. The Easter and Whitsun recesses were announced just after Christmas and the dates for the summer recess were made known before the end of June. That was substantially better than in most previous years. I am not yet in a position to give the recess dates for the next Session of Parliament, but I hope that I shall be able to give some at a reasonably early stage when we resume.
The House has been generous enough to accept that what I have been able to say on a Thursday about the business for the second week, even though by no means always complete, has helped Members in planning their weekend engagements, particularly when, as in almost every week, I have been able to give a pretty clear indication of the nature of the business on the Thursday, which is the important day for people's planning.
I want to explain to the House as briefly as I can the main provisions in the five motions amending Standing Orders. To a large extent, they simply restate the Sessional Orders under which this Session's experiment has proceeded.
The first motion, on consolidation Bills and Law Commission Bills, restates the provisions of the Sessional Orders which provide expedited procedures for those law reform measures. The only new provision in the motion is that the question on Second Reading, as well as Third Reading, of a consolidation Bill will be disposed of without debate.
I should emphasise that a different procedure applies to Law Commission Bills that change rather than consolidate the law. That is particularly important in view of some of the exchanges that we had only a few moments ago.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: With regard to the question on Second Reading of a consolidation Bill being put forthwith so that there is no debate, if amendments were tabled there would be the absurd situation that the House would go into Committee. That is rather odd because it would probably result in longer proceedings. I had experience of that only a few days ago when I was able to speak on Second Reading and comment on amendments that I had tabled. Had I been denied that opportunity, I would inevitably have had to make longer speeches on each amendment. That seems rather odd.
In addition, on that occasion the Solicitor-General and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman wanted to compliment the Law Commission on its work, but if there were no Second Reading such an opportunity would be denied them.

Mr. Newton: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to the resolution and comment on it later. But he is right that what I am proposing would deprive my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General of the opportunity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I take this opportunity on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and myself, and no doubt the whole House, to express my thanks to Mr. Justice Brooke, the Law Commission and the draftsmen who served them so well for the valuable work that they do in keeping the statute book in good running repair.
I emphasised that a different procedure applies to those Law Commission Bills that make some changes in the law rather than simply consolidate it. Those Bills will be referred automatically to a Second Reading Committee, but—this is an important point—the Government would expect, as at present, to respond to any request from the Opposition for a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House. The opportunities for hon. Members to scrutinise the details of those Bills in Committee—this may be of particular importance to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—and on Report will be exactly the same as for any other Bill.
The second motion on money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions follows the Sessional Orders in providing that they will not be debatable if taken immediately after Second Reading of the Bill to which they relate. I think that it has been generally accepted that that was a sensible change made for the present Session.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there have been

occasions in the past when Second Reading debates have been extended, either to 11 o'clock or to midnight, so that all hon. Members who wished to speak could do so? That is a fairly cumbersome procedure. The big advantage of the money resolution was that an hon. Member who might be cut out of the debate could put pressure on others to shorten their speeches. There was always that safety valve. Why is it necessary to get rid of it?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a matter of judgment, but the former arrangements led, in my view, to some highly artificial debating in respect of the relatively narrow terms of money and, especially, ways and means motions. I will not disguise my personal feeling that the change that was made was for the general convenience of the House, and that a greater application of arrangements for the Chair to limit the length of speeches has proved the right way in which to tackle the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware that discussion of the monetary aspect of a Bill often allows hon. Members to make points that they would not normally make on Second Reading? With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his description of such debate as "highly artificial" reflects more his wish for his legislation to be passed speedily than the true interests of the Back Bencher who may have been squeezed out of an important Second Reading debate.

Mr. Newton: I believe that the view that I have expressed is by no means confined to the Leader of the House. There was a general feeling that it was more convenient for the House to know when a Second Reading debate would end and when the votes would take place. I understand what the hon. Lady has said—and I respect her judgment, even if I do not agree with it—but I feel that the way in which to tackle this is to apply the so-called 10-minute rule to speeches, rather than extending debates into the night.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that some Bills involve important financial issues? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, for instance, was virtually predicated on finance, which may not have been a major feature of the specific Second Reading debate. The same applies to the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. Surely to make such a change because the majority view in the Government favours it is to reduce the opportunities for Back Benchers who wish to make specifically financial and sometimes crucial points.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point, according him my usual respect. I feel, however, that a proper Second Reading debate—especially if the speaking rule that I mentioned is applied by the Chair—provides a perfectly adequate opportunity for hon. Members to make the points that they wish to make.
I entirely accept that, in the end, the House must make a judgment, and decide whether it prefers my view and the view reflected in the Sessional Orders—which I am seeking to carry into the Standing Orders—or the view expressed by the hon. Members who have intervened during the past few minutes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Newton: I sense, however, that we are about to hear from another hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House accept that some of us hold the considered view, rightly or wrongly, that had Michael Foot and the late Jack Mendelson been confined to 10-minute speeches, this country would almost certainly have sent troops to Vietnam—rightly or, as some of us might think, wrongly? In the 1960s it was Michael Foot, Jack Mendelson and others who dissuaded the House of Commons from what might have been the wishes of the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. In 10-minute speeches, neither Michael Foot nor Jack Mendelson, nor anyone else, would have had a chance.

Mr. Newton: I often say at the Dispatch Box—and it is more than just empty words—how much I respect the contribution that the hon. Gentleman makes to our proceedings, although, again, I do not always agree with him. I acknowledge the judgment that he has made. I believe, however, that the changed arrangements—those involving the 10-minute rule, for instance, go back much further than any proposals for last year's Sessional Orders or the current Standing Orders—have been widely welcomed in the House as enabling more hon. Members to take part in many debates. I certainly would not think it right to propose a departure from those arrangements in response to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has just crossed my mind that when Labour get into government in a short time, Tory Members will not be able to make as much money on the side as they make now because of the Nolan restrictions. Even if we lose the vote on Monday, we shall bring in those restrictions in a fortified form. As they will not be able to make so much money, they will want to be in here kicking the ball about. Tory Back Benchers and members of the Government who will be Back Benchers—those who are not on the chicken run and are coming back—will come to this place at 8 o'clock at night and it will be shut.
I do not want to sound like an advocate of what will be the new Opposition in a couple of years' time, but the Conservatives will be in one hell of a mess. They will not be making money out of directorships because of Nolan, and they will not be able to come here because the right hon. Gentleman is closing down all the opportunities to get stuck into the Labour Government. For the life of me I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman is digging a trench for himself.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue some of those points in a later debate. I await that with interest.
The third motion, which deals with delegated legislation, restates the Sessional Order provisions for the automatic referral to Standing Committees of affirmative statutory instruments and for a limit of one and a half hours on debates on statutory instruments and EC documents. The Government will continue to respond positively to any reasonable request by the Opposition, as I think we have demonstrated this year, for an instrument to be de-referred. We will, of course, consider making more than one and a half hours available for debates on particularly important instruments by agreement through the usual channels.

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Newton: I will take my hon. Friend's intervention first, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of removing the powers of 20 hon. Members to object to affirmative instruments will be, technically, a diminution of the rights of Back Benchers to control the Executive?

Mr. Newton: I do not agree. Arrangements for orderly debate in which as many Members as possible can take part provide an effective check on the Executive. The arrangements that we have made for dealing with statutory instruments, and especially our willingness to respond to representations about more time being required, deal effectively with my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Gill: I understand that these powers have seldom, if ever, been used. What is the compelling reason to wipe them out of the Standing Order which will replace Standing Order No. 101?

Mr. Newton: I have already demonstrated by what I said last year about Sessional Orders and by what I am saying here on the proposed Standing Orders that I have in mind the convenience of the House in providing what I think are generally regarded as proper opportunities for debate on both primary and secondary legislation. Certainly, the recommendations are the result of widespread consultation in the House and reflect the Procedure Committee's recommendations on these matters. I know that all those who have been concerned are conscious of the rights of Back Benchers and of the importance of ensuring that matters are properly discussed.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being very indulgent, and I beg his pardon, but it is important to consider these matters seriously. I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Is it not true that statutory instruments taken in Committee are frequently considered at enormous speed? Therefore, far from expanding the amount of time that is available for these debates, we may curtail it, and it is clear that there is to be no flexibility in relation to tabling motions on EC matters. Such flexibility would have been welcomed by many people because of the importance of so much EC legislation.

Mr. Newton: I again note the views that are being expressed. On the question of instruments and sometimes other matters proceeding at a fair pace in Committees, may I say that that would normally be because those who are on the Committees—I think that it is well known that it is not always easy to find people who are keen to serve on such Committees—do not feel that they wish to take a great deal of time in discussions. It would certainly not be correct to draw the conclusion that somehow debate is being suppressed because some non-controversial orders go through a properly constituted Standing Committee with relatively little discussion. That would not be a right deduction.
The fourth motion deals with private Members' business. The new arrangements under which private Members' business, except private Members' Bills, is transferred to Wednesday mornings, have—it is important that I should emphasise this—given private Members more time on the Floor of the House than the previous arrangements ever did. Since the experiment started, even allowing for the fact that morning sittings did not begin until the third Wednesday after the Christmas recess,


private Members made a net gain of eight hours' debating time. In a full Session, if we had had Wednesday morning sittings since November, that would have been a net gain of 19 hours. Just as important, the number of opportunities for Back Benchers to initiate a debate has doubled, and those opportunities occur more regularly and at a much more sensible hour.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House accept that there may be more time for debate, but that there is far less time for any votes on issues that we have debated?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raises that point in one of the amendments on the Order Paper. Evidently, he will wish to make a speech and, no doubt, elaborate on that point.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House satisfy my curiosity? Are the Wednesday morning motions chosen by ballot, by alchemy or by Speaker's choice?

Mr. Newton: As the decisions about Wednesday morning debates are taken under arrangements agreed by you, Madam Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to describe them in detail, but I understand that a balloting arrangement is involved.
The motion provides for non-sitting Fridays each Session, which Members will be able to keep free for their constituency duties, and for the House to sit on Wednesday mornings for Adjournment debates initiated by private Members who have been successful in the Speaker's ballot. The Wednesday morning before each recess will be devoted to a general debate on
matters to be considered before the forthcoming Adjournment",
to which, of course, I as Leader of the House would expect to reply on the Government's behalf. That change was introduced in response to widespread requests in the House after the original main Sessional Orders were debated and decided. I was glad to make it, and it has worked well.
The motion also takes up an idea that the Procedure Committee considered in its recent inquiry, but that it decided, in the event, not to pursue. I thought, however, that it was an extremely good idea and, with agreement through the usual channels, I have therefore included it in the motion. The idea is that the start of the sitting on Wednesdays should be brought forward to 9.30, with a clear-cut, half-hour suspension between 2 and 2.30.
The reasons why I proposed that are obvious and I sense that some hon. Members who disagree with me on other points agree with me on that one. It brings the start of the sitting on Wednesdays into line with our practice on Fridays. It reduces, at least to some extent, some of the pressures of more than 12 hours' continuous sitting on the staff of the House, and it avoids what was sometimes an untidy junction between the morning sittings and Question Time in the afternoon. I emphasise that exactly the same amount of time will be available for private Members as at present.
The motion also makes provision for up to three Wednesday mornings, between 9.30 and 12.30, to be devoted to debates on Select Committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee. That reflects a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee, but varies from it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) may wish to note. The Committee recommended that there should be six Select Committee

Wednesday mornings, but some practical difficulties exist in ensuring that those days are properly spaced throughout the Session, so I suggest, without having a closed mind for ever on this matter, that we should start with three and see how that works out. We have had those morning sittings only since January and it would be reasonable to proceed a bit cautiously with proposals for changing their character to the extent that that could mean.
That argues in favour of starting with a relatively small number, although, of course, like everything else in these resolutions, it is a matter for the House to decide. It remains the case that, if hon. Members want to spend more time on Select Committee reports than the motion provides, there is the opportunity, even without changing the order further, the possibility of which will always be there, to apply for time to debate Select Committee reports separately from the three Wednesday mornings by entering the Speaker's ballot in the usual way.
Finally, the motion takes the opportunity to make a minor amendment to the Standing Order governing Consolidated Fund Bills. The Standing Order has to be amended to remove the now obsolete provision for an all-night debate on the Adjournment after the proceedings on the Bill. I am proposing that we should also drop the requirement that the Bill should be the first Order of the Day since it can be, and often is, the first Order of the Day without being the first item of business. The requirement serves no useful purpose.
The fifth motion—this re-enters the controversy raised a few moments ago—which allows the Speaker to make greater use of the power to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers follows the provisions of the current Sessional Order. I should remind the House that Front-Bench spokesmen will not be governed by a formal limit. They have been asked to endeavour to keep their opening speeches to 30 minutes and their closing speeches to 20 minutes. As I have now been speaking for some 25 minutes, partly because of interventions, the right thing for me to do now would be to sit down.

Madam Speaker: I should tell the House that I have reflected on the amendments. As the House will know, amendment (a) is the paver for amendment (b). If amendment (a) is defeated, amendment (b) will automatically fall. If amendment (a) is successful, I will put the Question on amendment (b). Amendment (c) has virtually the same aim as amendments (a) and (b), but it deals with the Monday rather than the Wednesday option. I believe that the Question should be put on amendment (c) regardless of whether amendment (a) is defeated or amendments (a) and (b) are successful. I want to be helpful to the House so that there can be a Division on all of those.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am sure that the House—or at least my hon. Friends—will be grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for that reconsideration of the amendments.
This is one occasion on which I agree with the Leader of the House. That is not always the case, certainly not on all issues. I am one of those who believe that the experiment which has been conducted over the past year has been successful and I am willing to enable the experimental changes to be consolidated and put into the Standing Orders of the House.
Many hon. Members have looked with a great deal of relief at what has been happening over the past year. As the Leader of the House pointed out, the past year has seen a reduction in the finishing time and a different system and atmosphere on Thursday evenings. Hon. Members, especially those with non-London constituencies, have found it extremely beneficial to be able to return to their constituencies on Thursday evenings. It has meant that hon. Members have been able to carry out their job more effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Gill: Clearly, the House is interested in the prospect of having more sociable hours. However, surely the main consideration for the House is the way in which it scrutinises legislation. Does the hon. Lady believe that the level of scrutiny of legislation is satisfactory, and does she consider that it has been improved or worsened by the changes proposed?

Mrs. Taylor: I shall come to that point. First, I want to say that I do not think that these changes should be judged by what has happened in the past year alone. I believe that I differ from the Leader of the House in my views on this matter, but I do not believe that the past year has been a typical parliamentary year. We have not had the amount of controversial legislation that we might expect, for example, in the first year of a new Government.
The amount of Government business and the number, complexity and controversial nature of that business have not been what it might have been in other years. Before we start judging the changes against the factors that I mentioned at the beginning, we should bear it in mind that the past year has not been typical. We must disentangle the benefits that the House has received as a result of the Jopling proposals from the incidental benefits that we have received because this has been a year of light business.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked the central question about whether the changes substantially affect the House's ability to scrutinise the Government and their legislation and to hold the Government to account. My view is that the changes make very little difference. There is a great need for reform of the way in which the House works. Many of us feel that we would do our jobs as Members of Parliament much more effectively and efficiently, and I do not believe that the one excludes the other.
The Jopling proposals are really about making us work more efficiently—not necessarily about making us work more effectively. Other changes are required to bring about better effectiveness—including, for example, a greater use of Second Reading Committees. Other changes would also help to keep the Executive more accountable.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should be considering some of the other changes to which she has just referred? Would it not have been logical to try further experiments before consolidating the current experiments into our Standing Orders? It seems that everyone is saying, "We have had enough. We have done a little bit and we should stop here." In fact, some of the other areas that could be covered by experiments might prove to be more rewarding and effective than some of those that we are discussing today.

Mrs. Taylor: The Jopling Committee reported on 18 February 1992, but we did not begin the experiment until December 1994. It would be foolish simply to continue with the experiment, because the House would never make a decision. I am optimistic that in future there might be more Members who would want to consider changes to our methods of working. However, in the meantime I would prefer to consolidate the changes that have been covered by our experiment, which I believe has been very successful, and then think about other changes. That would be better than continuing to have different sorts of experiments, one following on from the other.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the changes have deprived Back-Bench Members of an effective way of encouraging Governments, of all colours, to take on board what could be contentious legislation? Quite frankly, if the Abortion Act 1967 had not had time on a Friday and had not been able to go through the voting system, it would not be on the statute book today.

Mrs. Taylor: I respect the views of my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience in such matters. I accept what she says about the avenues open to Back Benchers having been diminished to a certain extent. However, I part company with her when she says that those were effective means by which Back Benchers could influence events. In response to her comments about pressure being put on Governments to provide time for votes on a private Member's Bill, she will realise that it has been made clear today that that is dependent on a Government's business managers. They make the decisions about providing such time.
I do not believe that any of the losses in Back Benchers' rights are significant. Many of the proposed changes, in particular—I stress this because it is important—the much better use of Back-Bench time on a Wednesday morning, compensate for any losses in other areas. We should bear in mind the lack of effectiveness of the mechanisms that we are losing.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there not a distinction between the different Back Benchers in the House? Many more informal avenues are made available to Conservative Back Benchers than to Labour Back Benchers, who must make use of every available procedure to get their views across and to raise constituents' interests. Therefore, we should be careful about allowing some of those rights to disappear.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that Conservative Back Benchers, who will be in opposition after the next election, will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Of course additional avenues are open to Government Back Benchers, but—I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—the mechanisms that have been lost to Back Benchers have not been used very often, and certainly have not been used effectively. I have looked at what has happened during recent years, but I cannot find any precedent for the effective use of the mechanisms that my hon. Friends complain we are losing.

Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended to intervene, but rather to make this point in my speech, but I feel it important at this time to point out that the opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise issues of any nature have risen from 80 to 160. The number of


opportunities has doubled. It is wrong to suggest that hon. Members do not have the opportunity to hold the Government to account or, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, to introduce private legislation. In fact, Back-Bench Members have double the number of opportunities.

Mrs. Taylor: No doubt my hon. Friends will wish to take up the right hon. Gentleman's point later. I understand my hon. Friends' case to be that although Back Benchers may have gained in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, they have lost the right to vote on certain motions. That forms the basis of the amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends. I can remember when we had ballots for motions. I also remember that often there was an elongated debate simply to prevent the second debate taking place. It was using Back-Bench time to block another Back Bencher. I remind my hon. Friends that all was not sweetness and light with that system, nor were there many occasions on which a vote in those circumstances made a great deal of difference to any future decision.

Mr. Dalyell: I refer my hon. Friend to an occasion on which I was instrumental—together with one or two colleagues—in keeping the House up all night in a very elongated debate. We might think that we were eloquent, but that was neither here nor there. The subject of the debate was Iranian sanctions. Because we kept talking and because the Government had a problem with a closure motion, it was the first occasion on which the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, did a U-turn. On the criterion of effectiveness, that debate—which was about not our eloquence, but the use of parliamentary time—was extremely effective.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the unlimited time that used to be available for the Consolidated Fund debate. That is not a subject of the proposed changes; indeed, the procedure for that debate was changed a long time ago. We are not discussing it tonight and neither was it part of the experiment. We will not be voting on it tonight.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: I shall give way for the last time. I do not want to abuse the time allocated to me under the informal arrangements.

Mr. Spearing: I was rather surprised by my hon. Friend's comments about motions. As the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, we now have double the number of opportunities, so even if three quarters of the time used is not effective, surely opportunities must be made available for hon. Members to raise matters of great topical importance. Otherwise, debates on those matters would never happen.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is too pessimistic about the events of the past year. The Wednesday morning debates have been used to good effect by Back Benchers to raise exactly the sort of issues that my hon. Friend mentioned—for example, animal welfare, opencast mining, the problem of drugs in Scotland—which was debated last Wednesday—and the future of rugby, which was debated a few months ago and which appears to have altered some of the decisions being made at that time.
The changes that have been implemented during the past year have proved to be extremely effective. A large number of hon. Members have participated in the Wednesday morning debates. There have been 110 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates, with 634 speeches and interventions. For those hon. Members who do not have London constituencies or who are not London based, the use of a Wednesday morning rather than a Friday or a Monday afternoon is extremely valuable.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that she has been talking about have more to do with creating the opportunity for individual Back Benchers to ventilate their particular concerns than they have to do with controlling the Executive or scrutinising legislation? I am sorry that she seems to want to talk about the general convenience of the House and the sweeties available to individuals rather than about the serious purpose of the House, which is to control the Executive and scrutinise legislation.

Mrs. Taylor: That is why I said earlier that the Jopling reforms were not fundamental, which is how they are often described. I would be happy to consider other suggestions on how to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I do not think there is anything in the proposed changes that will make it difficult to achieve what the hon. Gentleman intends.
I shall make a couple of other points about the changes. The informal agreements on future business and the fact that the Leader of the House has on occasion been able to provide us with information about that business has been helpful. We accept that he cannot always do that, and I think that he will agree that, when he has had to change the business or modify arrangements, having given us early warning, we have not complained.
I hope that that will continue, although I want to make a small special plea about recess dates and constituency Friday dates, the non-sitting dates. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take proper account of the difficulties that face hon. Members when the arrangements do not coincide with school holidays. I do not see why we cannot be civilised when considering such dates and try to ensure that they are as convenient as possible for family life as well as for the arrangements of the House.
Reference was made to the length of speeches, and the Lord President made a joke about Front-Bench speeches. That is one matter on which we have not succeeded as we could or should have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has been keeping a close watch on speeches and has produced a table showing the length of all Front-Bench speeches in the past year. [Interruption.] It is available, and if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wants to publish it, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not object.

Mr. Mackinlay: Can we all get it?

Mrs. Taylor: Yes, and representations can be made to any offenders, of whom there are probably more among the Conservatives than among Labour Members.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the important thing is not the length of speeches themselves but the need to take account of interventions? Interventions are one of the most important parts of the proceedings of the House. The worst thing about the


10-minute rule is that it discourages taking interventions. I do not think that Front-Bench Members should be criticised for taking a little longer if they give way several times. Of course, one or two put their heads down and do not give way at all.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has also calculated the number of interventions. There was no correlation between the length of speeches and the number of interventions accepted. While I accept that we have to be flexible and encourage interventions, we should not allow Ministers in particular to hide behind pre-arranged interventions to make the debate go in a particular direction.
The changes have been beneficial. They are not dramatic or radical but they are helping to make Parliament work more efficiently. I agree that we have to do much more to make Parliament work more effectively but, in view of the experiment that we have undertaken and the responses that the Procedure Committee received from hon. Members showing that the changes are by and large popular, I commend the proposals to the House.

Sir Peter Emery: In the 13 years that I have been Chairman of the Procedure Committee, many people will have heard me say that I have been struggling to drag the procedures of the House into the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. I believe that the Lord President of the Council and the resolutions that we are discussing are the instruments to achieve that end.
More people are coming to understand Parliament and respect the way in which we carry out our business. The House will know that the Procedure Committee agreed to monitor the working of the Jopling report, and the Leader of the House asked us to do a number of other things such as review setpiece debates. I remind hon. Members, and anyone outside who may be interested, of the responses that we received to our questionnaire.
The figures in paragraph 7 of the report show that we received 524 responses. That figure has now risen to 530, which is a response rate of 82 per cent. That is larger than anyone would have imagined. Public relations companies say that it is a remarkable return.
We divided the questionnaire into six sections, each examining a distinct aspect of the particular package of alterations to the Standing Orders. The vast majority of hon. Members—88 per cent.—expressed general support for the reforms. A similar number, just under 90 per cent., found the alteration to the House's sitting hours an improvement. Similar results were obtained to questions about changes to the pattern of business, the scope of short speech Sessional Orders and the early notification of business. More than three quarters, or 77 per cent., of hon. Members believed that the Sessional, or temporary, Orders should be turned into Standing Orders, which is what we are discussing today.
I shall for a moment analyse some of the responses, because it is important to get them into perspective. Of the replies received, 255 were from Conservatives, which is approximately 78 per cent. of all Conservative Members; 200 came from Labour Members, which is 74 or 75 per cent. of their total; 18 came from Liberal

Democrats, which is 78 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members; and 20 were from members of other parties, which is the equivalent of 87 per cent. of their number. As I said, 88.7 per cent. of those who replied believed that in general the reforms were to be welcomed and should be implemented.
We asked whether the introduction of Wednesday morning Adjournment debates were advantageous to the House. Eighty-four per cent. of Conservative Members, 88 per cent. of Labour Members and 83 per cent. of Liberal Democrats agreed that such debates were advantageous, and were to be welcomed. They accepted absolutely that they should become permanent.
It is perhaps important to note that, if the House prorogues on 8 November—I understand that is much more than a possibility—it will have sat for 156 days in the 1994–95 Session, not counting eight constituency Fridays. That compares with 154 days with no sitting Fridays in 1993–94, 167 days in 1988–89 and 172 days in 1985–86, which were the third years of their respective Parliaments. Therefore, the notion that the reforms have drastically reduced the number of days that the House sits is incorrect.

Mr. Mackinlay: In the survey circulated to hon. Members, there was no mention—was there?—of the change in the Sessional Orders now before us, meaning that both Law Commission Bills and consolidation Bills have been slipped on our agenda tonight very craftily, and that there will not be a Second Reading of consolidation Bills on the Floor of the House. Therefore, Bills coming from the Law Commission, such as the proposed Bill on divorce, will immediately be referred to a Second Reading Committee. That has been slipped on to the Order Paper today and has never been put to the House of Commons before.

Mr. Skinner: Sneaky and underhand.

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps I may suggest to the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who sit below the Gangway, that they read our report, because what they say is not the case. Such matters were put in the questionnaire, and as I work through, I shall come to that, without any doubt.
The shift to Wednesday morning debates—doing away with the Consolidated Fund, the end-of-term Adjournment debates and private Members' motions—has, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), meant that Members of Parliament have double the opportunities for debates.
Much has been made about the claim that that change does not allow for a vote. I am informed that private Members' motions went to a Division on only about 12 per cent. of all occasions in the previous Session. The interesting fact is that at no time did the Government lose such a Division. So the concept—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Not for the moment. If the hon. Lady sits down I shall give way to her soon.
Therefore, the concept that having that vote is a great influence on the Government is just not the case.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Frankly, if 12 per cent. of occasions are sufficiently controversial to demand a vote, and if


those votes are a clear sign of how the House is moving, the Government do not have to be defeated on a particular vote to take note of the fact that they must respond to especial concerns in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman and I have been here long enough to know that all sensible Governments take very good note when sufficient numbers of Members vote on a particular private matter which happens to be contentious.

Sir Peter Emery: I have been here slightly longer than the hon. Lady and I believe that it is much more important that Members should be able to hold the Government to account on more and more subjects on more and more occasions. It is quite surprising to discover how many hon. Members have spoken in Wednesday morning debates, and, indeed, to see the Government responses to a number of those debates. Such occasions have been much more use in holding the Executive to account, as was suggested earlier, than previous opportunities.

Mr. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman is not very keen on votes, perhaps he should abolish the idea of having votes of confidence in the Government. I would have thought that, since 1945, there must have been a large number of votes of no confidence in the Government. I think that only one was carried. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to abolish that idea? There may have been votes on only 12 per cent. of occasions, but some of them were useful.

Sir Peter Emery: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is slightly more intelligent than to think that votes of censure and votes on a private Members' motion are in any way comparable. He knows that they are not. He is not even making a debating point.
I come to the next aspect of analysis: the reduction in late sittings. It is not very surprising that 90 per cent. of all respondents approved of the reduction. To the question whether they approved of non-sitting Fridays for constituency business, 88.7 per cent. of hon. Members responded in a favourable manner. To those Members who believe that that is an unimportant aspect, I refer them to paragraph 26 of the report, in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury is quoted—it is well worth repeating—as saying:
I really think that we should not be shame-faced about the House not sitting on Fridays … The idea that Members of Parliament are only working when they are sitting in the Chamber is total nonsense. There is a need for some political education and we have a responsibility to provide some of that political education.
In other words, it is absolutely clear that there is work to be done in the constituency, and it should' be carried out.

Sir Dudley Smith: This point is fundamental because the media consistently portray Members of Parliament scampering off as quickly as possible and voting for shorter hours. Anyone with a constituency outside London—if he is doing his job—knows that Fridays are essential because they are the only days of the week when a Member of Parliament has an opportunity of making contact with people who are also at work; in factories, schools and others places. If Members are restricted merely to visiting on Saturdays, proper contact cannot be made.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend's point is relevant and important.
The Select Committee report comes into conflict with the Government over the timetabling of Bills, although it does not necessarily suggest that the process has not been a success in the past Session. It is interesting that only 18 per cent. of respondents felt that the voluntary timetabling of Bills should not be carried on for ever, while 65 per cent. felt that it had been successful. However there was a considerable demand—65 per cent. of respondents—for the timetabling of Bills to become part of Standing Orders. Of those wanting such a development, 69 per cent. were Conservative Members, 58 per cent. Labour Members, and 89 per cent. Liberal Democrats.
So a majority of almost two thirds of Members were in favour of turning the voluntary agreement into a permanent arrangement. I think that the feeling behind that was that it was all very well last year, but the same position might not remain in future and ought to be made part of Standing Orders.
I shall deal now with money and Ways and Means resolutions, statutory instruments and prayers, and European Community documents, which were all included in the report. Indeed, the Law Commission factor was there as well. Approximately, 78 per cent., 88 per cent. and 81 per cent. of respondents respectively believed that the existing arrangements should continue and be made permanent.
The last two important aspects of the analysis were that 87.7 per cent. of respondents felt that the Speaker's ability to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches should be continued. I should point out that, when the speeches of hon. Members have been affected by major interruptions, the occupants of the Chair have been flexible in genuine cases, although they would not necessarily accept or admit it, but if hon. Members consider the question, they will see that there have been times when Members have spoken for much longer than the 10 minutes allowed.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: I have given way a great deal.
The proposal that the Speaker should be given power to limit speeches to 10 minutes during 90-minute debates also met with massive approval. Indeed, there have been many excesses in 90-minute debates, when some hon. Members have spoken for 20 or 25 minutes and left no time for others.
I believe that, on the whole, Members have very positively responded in support of the action that has been taken. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to carry through the recommendation that debate on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech should be cut for a day to allow for a major economic debate in the spring. I believe that that is a sensible suggestion, which I hope will be adopted in time.
In conclusion, it is quite clear that reform can be attained only when the majority of hon. Members agree to it. There will always be one, two or a small handful of hon. Members who will object to any aspect of change.

Mr. Skinner: The awkward squad.

Sir Peter Emery: If ever there were a leader of that squad, it is the hon. Member for Bolsover, who is sitting opposite me now. I believe that a majority of hon. Members are in favour of the proposals on the Order Paper. I urge that they be carried, without amendment, into the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I strongly support all the changes that appear on the Order Paper today. I believe that they are a first and a minimalist step toward what I hope will be a fundamental root-and-branch reform of the way in which we do business in this place. I understand perfectly the honourable, respectable and good tradition of the "awkward squad" in this place. I hope that that will always be the case. There will always be a role for hon. Members who have bona fide reasons for giving the Government of the day a hard time. That is one of the functions of debate in this place.
Having said that, I believe that people in the community find it difficult to understand the way in which the House does business currently. They find the procedures arcane, outmoded and inefficient. I pay credit to the Leader of the House for going the last mile in trying to ensure that the minimalist changes have a basis of consent. I hope that he will not give up on reform once he has banked the changes—because I hope that that is what will occur—this evening. I hope that it is just the beginning of a momentum for change that will ensure that the House of Commons is a modern Chamber that is fit to govern in the 21st century. Unfortunately, at present the public do not believe that that is the case.

Sir Dudley Smith: I wish to raise two points in the debate. I have already raised the issue of not sitting on certain Fridays with my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), by way of intervention. One may align that with the fact that we often have less urgent business on Thursday evenings, which allows hon. Members to return to their constituencies to perform their constituency duties properly. It does not take too much imagination to realise that, if the time of hon. Members is too restricted, they will not be able to make essential contacts with their constituents—including industrialists, schools and local government organisations—on a non-political basis.
Consequently, the proposal is very welcome. I have been in this place for a long time and, like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I believe that the change should have occurred years ago. I only hope that the next reforms will not be so long in coming.

Mr. Dalyell: The people of Warwick and Leamington are not deprived of the hon. Gentleman's presence because of what occurs in the House of Commons on a Friday. If he wishes to return to his constituency, he is able to do so under the old system that we are abolishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "At 3 o'clock."] Exactly. Hon. Members are rarely prevented from returning to their constituencies on a Friday.

Sir Dudley Smith: The answer is that one cannot have it both ways. If hon. Members are able to return to their constituencies on a Thursday evening, they may make appointments there at 9 o'clock or 10.30 the next morning. Many of us have not attended the Chamber on a Friday for that reason and, consequently, our attendances on Fridays are extremely poor. Because of constituency commitments, we are often unable to participate in the important and interesting debates on Fridays. That factor must be taken into account.
I support the reforms almost unreservedly, but I must address the question of time limitations on speeches, to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) referred. I hope that we shall not go too far in timetabling speeches. Despite what anyone says, that would discourage interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which are the kernel of our debates. Many effective and important interventions have been made over the years and they have always been part and parcel of the procedures in this place.
Anyone who has had experience of parliamentary procedure on the continent will know that interventions are a fairly rare occurrence. Those who have had experience of parliamentary assemblies associated with international and European organisations will know that the practice of intervening in the speech of another is very much frowned upon, if not banned. Consequently, there is a set pattern of speech after speech without any of the variety and intensity of debate that occurs so often in this place.
Our Parliament is often criticised for being confrontational because the parties sit opposite each other; we do not adopt the same soft line as the Europeans. I believe that that makes our debates a darn sight more interesting: they have flavour and they are often very pertinent indeed. One only wishes that Parliament received better media coverage generally so that we could put our case to the people. That could only benefit the institution of Parliament.
By and large, I welcome the procedures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who said that the past parliamentary Session was not typical. I think it is very dangerous to measure procedural experiments in an untypical Session. I believe that it would have been better to allow the informal arrangements to continue for three or four years, perhaps trying a few more experiments and observing how they worked, and then include them in the Standing Orders. I realise that the Standing Orders may be changed in the future, but I believe that the House should be very cautious in accepting that all the reforms are beneficial.
I welcome the fact that hon. Members may be able to leave the House at 7 o'clock on a Thursday night. That is a very sensible proposal. However, we must be very careful that that does not change the nature of the whole of Thursday. I have been surprised by how difficult it is to persuade people to attend meetings within the House—not in the Chamber—on a Thursday because they assume that they may be able to return to their constituencies on a Wednesday night. Therefore, Thursday becomes a quieter day. If one compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Thursday with Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday, one sees that there are far fewer hon. Members in the Chamber on a Thursday.
Having business questions and then a statement on a Thursday leaves only two hours, or even less time, for debate. Therefore, there is a tendency not to have major debates on a Thursday—unless the Government are being particularly Machiavellian and want to squeeze the time


allowed for debate. The business on Thursday is less likely to have a three-line Whip and, for that reason, I suggest that we are changing the nature of Thursdays.
Hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees may have noticed how reluctant Committees are to meet on Thursday evenings because other hon. Members are likely to have left the building. Committee members often find themselves wandering around empty corridors like ghosts. We must look carefully at the implications of the proposals for Thursdays. Perhaps business questions could be moved to Wednesdays to allow time for a guaranteed three-hour debate on Thursdays.
There are two strong arguments for retaining the possibility of debating money resolutions. One hopes that there would be agreement among hon. Members, and no one would need to use the time allocated for money resolutions. However, if many hon. Members were competing to get into a debate, one could always make it clear that, if one's speech could not be squeezed in, one would speak on the money resolution. It was amazing how often Front-Bench spokesmen were prepared to give up a little more of their time to make sure that everybody got in. Money resolutions represented an important opportunity to guarantee that people got into the main debate. They were also a useful muscle for the Opposition. If there was a disagreement, the Opposition could threaten to debate the money resolution, and everyone would be delayed a little longer.
The more those opportunities are reduced, the more hon. Members have to turn to more disruptive activities to get across the passions that they feel. It was a Conservative Member who picked up the Mace, but the more we remove the means of putting pressure on the Government, the more we encourage hon. Members in such activities as picking up the Mace. I urge the House not to remove all the ways for hon. Members to demonstrate rebellion and disagreement.
I now refer to the motion for shorter speeches. One of the most disappointing developments since I have been in the House is that the debate often deteriorates in the evening, and restricting speeches to 10 minutes makes it worse. We might as well have a room upstairs where people can deliver a speech to a mirror, as once the 10-minute rule is imposed there are no interventions. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the Chair could use its discretion, but all too often there is no chance of that, because hon. Members do not give way if they have only 10 minutes, so there is no question of the Chair exercising discretion. Matters would be greatly improved if speeches were 10 minutes excluding interventions.
We have now removed all opportunities for Back Benchers to cause votes on motions. That is an amazing reduction in their powers. The Government have the right to table motions. The Opposition have Supply days and so do the minority parties, but Back Benchers will now have no opportunity to vote on a motion.
There was a time when, if hon. Members put their names to an early-day motion, there was a chance that it would be debated. One trick that could be played if one came first in the ballot was to pick up an early-day motion that had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who had claimed to their constituents that they were in favour of it. One could then table a motion using exactly the same words, to find out whether they really supported the early-day motion to which they had put their name.
Now there will be no way for Back Benchers to test the opinion of the House. There will be cosy agreements between the Front Benches, but no rights for Back Benchers. I accept that it was unusual to come first in the ballot and that it was rare to have a vote, but the Government should consider finding some way of giving Back-Bench Members the right to table motions and have votes on them as a safeguard.

Mr. Mackinlay: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that only a few votes were taken on private Members' motions. However, on 1 July 1994, a majority in the Chamber supported the call for a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, and the Government did not dare divide the House because they would have lost. Apart from the Opposition, a commanding majority of Conservatives supported the idea of a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, so the Government did not divide the House. To say that only 12 per cent. of motions resulted in votes hides the fact that on many occasions the Executive get the message and dare not have a Division.

Mr. Bennett: I understand how the Government manoeuvred to avoid a vote, but real and direct pressure was put on the Executive by the possibility that there could have been one. The Leader of the House has to find a way of restoring that right to Back Benchers, either by accepting amendments (a) and (b) in my name or by considering the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we have ballots on Mondays. I do not mind whether it is Wednesday morning or Monday afternoon, but it is important to restore to Back Benchers the right to have votes.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would like to express my concern and that of all Back Benchers. The issue is clearly of considerable importance with the present balance of arithmetic in the House, but in future, if we have a balance of parties with no overall majority for the Administration, it will be even more important that Back-Bench groups can find opportunities to vote on important issues of principle. Therefore, there will be widespread concern on both sides of the House that the Leader of the House should listen to that point this evening.

Mr. Bennett: We should also examine the ballot procedure. We were assured from the Chair that Madam Speaker has an arrangement for balloting for Wednesday morning debates. I make a plea that it should be more transparent.
The old way in which hon. Members went into the Lobby, signed their names in the ballot book, and the raffle was carried out by the Chair, was a transparent procedure. One got a slot before announcing what one wanted to debate. It was a way of putting pressure on the Government. I remember at least one occasion during the last Labour Government when someone allegedly from the awkward squad came first in the ballot and there were frantic negotiations and deals struck between the Whips as to what motion that individual would table. None of that exists in the present procedure. If the majority of Back-Bench time is to be controlled by ballots run by the Speaker, other Members should know which hon. Members have put in their names, what they have selected and who has been successful or otherwise.
The Government should not stop the experiments; they should continue to have experiments, but they should not rush into making them permanent until we have had more time to see how they work in the long run. Particularly in respect of the rights of Back Benchers to cause votes, the Government should think again.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is important to remember that tonight's debate is the culmination of a number of occasions in the past 20 years when power has been taken from Back Benchers and handed to the two Front Benches. The practice has not been confined to the Tory party, as it is on this occasion—it happened under the Labour Government of 1974–79. Today we are removing a little more power from Back Benchers and handing it over to the Government of the day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the Consolidated Fund Bill. We could keep debate on it going ad nauseam through the following day, not because we wanted to be awkward but to stop some lousy Government business that would affect our constituents. On the occasion to which my hon. Friend referred, we were extremely successful. Not only did we have a vote on the Consolidated Fund, but we stretched out all three stages of the Bill. Gradually such opportunities were whittled down, until the debate finished at 9 o'clock without a Division.
Today's debate represents an extension of the exercise embarked on earlier this year when the Jopling proposals were introduced. Let us make no mistake about it. It is not about Labour versus Tory in terms of power. If Tory Back Benchers were worth their salt, there would be scores of them here today. They can see a Labour Government staring them in the face and they will not have the power that they had between 1974 and 1979 when they led the Labour Government a dance hour after hour through the night. I could recite all those occasions when Tory Back Benchers gave the Callaghan Government hell. That opportunity has been taken away. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I was in the House during those years. Perhaps my hon. Friend recalls the occasion in mid-1974 when Conservative Members, in opposition, kept the House going on a Consolidated Fund Bill so long that it was stopped only by the appearance of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. That was over the slag heaps affair. A Tory Government is removing that right.

Mr. Skinner: That adds to my argument that Parliament is changing. Most members of the Government and many of our Front Benchers want that change, but it takes power from Back Benchers.
When I first entered the House, there could be a properly designated Adjournment debate before every recess—it was the real thing and could not be stopped. If 50 hon. Members wanted to speak, the Government had to invoke the closure procedure to stop them. That meant that the Government had to keep their troops here.
One weapon that Back Benchers have is the ability to occupy the Government's time and space. That applies to the Opposition in general, both Front Benchers and Back

Benchers. The only real power that they have is to show that they are not prepared to take Government proposals lying down.
A good example of that involved Geoffrey Howe, when he was Leader of the House for a short spell. He did not like that job, which had been given to him by Margaret Thatcher. Many of us kept the Government up for several nights and Geoffrey Howe pulled up stumps. He was not having any more of that. That was another occasion when the Government decided to limit the power of Back Benchers.
We have lost the ability to keep Adjournment debates going more than three hours. Such debates have been slipped into Wednesdays.

Mr. Dalyell: In their reforms, Front Benchers are being dreadfully and pitifully naive. They are taking away not only the time of the House but the concentration of the civil service and of Whitehall on what occurs in the House. The Leader of the House should not be naive and simplistic. If Parliament matters less and less—some of us think that that is to the detriment of the country—that is one reason.

Mr. Skinner: I absolutely agree. Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to money resolutions. Again, power has been taken from Back Benchers who, if they had not managed to participate in the Second Reading debate, had 45 minutes to raise issues. Again, that change does not affect Front Benchers. They still have their say, but Back Benchers lost another opportunity to contribute.
As for Wednesday mornings, I applied for an Adjournment debate on French nuclear tests and the capture of the Rainbow Warrior. Many hon. Members were concerned about the events of that Sunday afternoon, and I raised them in the House on Monday. The Speaker more or less told me that if I made an application for an Adjournment debate, I would get one. I did—on a Wednesday morning.
Under the old-fashioned system of winning a place in the ballot for a Friday or Monday, there would have been a three-hour debate. I got a quarter of an hour and was able to offer a couple of minutes to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and another hon. Member managed to utter a couple of sentences. If any 20 of us had been presented with the opportunity to ballot for a motion, there would have been a three-hour debate. In the old days, there could also have been a Division and the Government would have been even more embarrassed. Although it is argued that Wednesday mornings provide an opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues, it is not the same as before, when I was able to table a motion about imported coal to which many other hon. Members could contribute.
As for the four-day week, I understand the argument that there are things for an hon. Member to do in his constituency. My argument is that whatever gloss is put on it, the 4 million people who are unemployed will say, "Why can't Members of Parliament produce legislation for a four-day week, to mop up the unemployed and to give young men and women a chance to get a job?" That is one of the most important challenges that will face the next Labour Government.
Tory Members will have given away all that parliamentary power, and they are losing their directorships under Nolan. God knows what they will do


with themselves at night. The Government will have got their legislation through at 8 pm and the House will not sit on Fridays—there may be another 10 Fridays off. Make no mistake: that will be the new Blair agenda.
All the Tory Members who are not in the Chamber will wish that they had been here to battle for the cause of Back Benchers. They have thrown it all away. I am standing up for the rights of a few of us. We will divide the House tonight, but we will have one big laugh when they put pink curtains up at No. 10 Downing street and the Daily Mirror reporter is able to go in there any day of the week. Then again, he may not. Those days will be different from 1974 and 1979.
Tory Back Benchers, with or without directorships, will rue the day that they shovelled away the power of Back Benchers. When a party is in opposition, it has loads of Back Benchers with loads of grievances. Labour Ministers will be arrayed on that Treasury Bench and they will be laughing all the way home. It will be left to me and my hon. Friends to carry the torch on behalf of Back Benchers, but we will not have the power that we used to have. Today, power is being taken from Back Benchers and handed to members of the two Front Benches, and there is no clear blue water between them.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put his finger on the point. There may be more time on Wednesdays and a more useful arrangement of time, but that time is for opinion rather than decision initiated by Back Benchers. My hon. Friend's example of a possible motion expressing an opinion about French nuclear tests will ring a bell in the minds of the public.
Our ability to raise such matters and to threaten a Division is not for our benefit but for those whom we represent. Without that power, the House will not have the respect that it would otherwise enjoy. That is one reason why public esteem for the House has reduced. More and more, matters are fixed between members of the two Front Benches. I will deal with that when I respond to the lack of enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for my amendment on private Members' motions.
Delegated legislation going Upstairs automatically by a Standing Order is dangerous, because the time allowed for such legislation is usually attenuated by the Chair after a little talk and takes up perhaps 30 seconds of the time of the House. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, it takes 20 hon. Members to stand up and say no. Some years ago, it was not difficult for one hon. Member, knowing that he had 19 supporters, to make representations, after which the statutory instrument might be dealt with on the Floor of the House or there would be discussion of it. That power is being removed without adding one minute to the time of Back Benchers.
When the experiment was first suggested, many of us did not object to the Wednesdays. I am afraid that the speech by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee illustrated the problem with what is happening now. Doubling the time for Adjournment debates on Wednesdays is being used as an excuse for taking away private Members' power to speak and, more important, to divide. I hope that the media will not say that Members have endorsed the reforms. As far as Wednesdays go, I

am not a member of the awkward squad. By all means give us double the time, but do not reduce our power under this camouflage.
Independent motions are part of the fabric of democracy and form part of our ancient parliamentary rights. A century ago, the time of the House was distributed fairly evenly between private Members' time, Government time and time for private legislation. The distribution varied from Session to Session, but since then private Members' time has been consistently whittled away with the connivance of Front Benchers on both sides, because it is in their interests to do that. Of course that prevents Members from representing the views of their constituents, often on non-party issues. The debates on private Members' motions will often bring out matters that have nothing to do with party opinion. Indeed, they can show the public that Members of Parliament are reasonable people of good sense, whose concerns mirror the public's concerns.
I hope tonight for some reassurance to the contrary from the Leader of the House, because Front Benchers on both sides are diminishing the status of Parliament and of private Members themselves. That in turn diminishes the legitimacy of those who speak from the Front Benches, and people will begin to doubt whether it is worth entering Parliament at all.
An important principle is at stake here. Until last year, on no fewer than 14 occasions in the year, Members successful in the ballot were able to debate a subject of their choice. The fact that that represented a tremendous threat to Front Benchers has been shown today in various ways. Often, a Member who has been successful in the ballot can be approached by other Members with more ideas touching on issues that affect the public. A thousand choices of subject present themselves in the early-day motions on our Order Paper, for instance. The Leader of the House is frequently asked for time to debate early-day motions, and in fact they are often debated: now that chance will go.
We also often hear the Leader of the House saying that the question raised by an hon. Member is a matter of great public importance, and that he should take his chances in the ballot. After today, unless we can be reassured otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will no longer be able to say that.
It is true, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, that private Members' time for Adjournment debates has been doubled. The modest amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests considering private Members' motions on four Wednesday mornings a year, which amounts to about half an hour a week. What is wrong with that? My amendment proposes four Mondays a year for this purpose, which amounts to no more than 20 minutes a week. My hon. Friends have already demonstrated that the Government are afraid of such motions, which is why, at the same time as doubling private Members' time to discuss subjects on the Adjournment, the Government are commuting our real power. There can be only one reason for eliminating that power: such debates really mattered.
The Leader of the House should accept one or other of the amendments—I am not too bothered which. I have proposed Mondays because I think that voting at 7 o'clock on a Monday on a motion or a closure would be a better


time. Even a closure can be a bit of a threat, for reasons of which we are all well aware. I think that that would be more convenient than voting at 2 o'clock on a Wednesday, as proposed by my hon. Friend. But if my amendment falls I will support his, since Madam Speaker has been gracious enough to allow us to proceed at some stage to both. Perhaps the Leader of the House will concede my idea of Mondays, if only because they will involve only three hours, instead of the four and a half or five hours involved in the other amendment.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury is not here at the moment. I neither followed nor agreed with what she said. I would hope that no Government will reduce the powers of Members of this House, because by doing so they would reduce the powers of the electorate as well. If the Government do that, they are demonstrating an arrogance which our democratic traditions should not tolerate. I hope that none of us, when we leave this place, will be sorry that we connived at the change.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It comes as a great shock to me to be called one of the awkward squad when, as hon. Members will know, I have been all my life the epitome of the gentle, calm and flexible politician. However, if I am to be awkward on this occasion, I hope that I shall do so with vigour and intent.
I have been here a very long time and I think it patronising to suggest that those of us who object to some of these changes do so merely because we are used to the old ways and have nothing useful to contribute. It is suggested that our objections are based, not on an understanding of what the House of Commons should be doing, but on a wish to stay as we always have been.
On the contrary, I believe that some of the problems raised this afternoon are fundamental. It is important to have extra time for Back Benchers, and I welcome Wednesday morning debates. Indeed, it would be ungracious of me not to, as I have been lucky enough to initiate one or two of them myself. But they should not be an alternative to allowing Back Benchers the muscle that goes with a vote. I am sure that the Leader of the House is not silly enough to think that they are an alternative. He must realise that Members of Parliament know the difference between a general debate and forcing the Government to take note of a vote which expresses the opinion of all parties.
So why are we being told that these are minimal changes to which we should not object because they simply ameliorate the workings of the House and, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), make it more efficient? That is not so. I do not mind people thinking me an idiot, but I do not want them to make it too clear. In this instance, the Leader of the House does himself an injustice. He does care about the rights of Back Benchers, but he cannot genuinely believe that we are so naive as not to be able to see what is happening.
Front Benchers, for their own sensible and focused reasons, are bent on ensuring that there are ever fewer opportunities for ordinary Members to cause trouble. But trouble is what Parliament is all about. I have sat in the

European Parliament and listened to those well organised debates in which people read out speeches without accepting any interventions and then brief representatives of the media outside the Chamber, congratulating themselves on ably representing a democratic system when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.
It is debate, fight and teasing out all the awkward things that people do not want known that is important about the Chamber. It has been like that for many centuries.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend remember the Member of the European Parliament who was least willing of all to give way at any time when she and I were indirectly elected MEPs? His name was Giulio Andreotti.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, and we all know that Mr. Andreotti was exceedingly good at organising procedure. Indeed, he made an entire career out of it. I was brought up by a man who believed in procedure because he understood that, when one was in a tight corner, having control of the standing orders was the way to limit any difficult debate. He understood that knowing how the standing orders operated gave one the power to control what was going on in any committee. That is a lesson that I have never forgotten.
I agree with 10-minute limits on speeches when many people want to speak and when the debate lends itself to hon. Members making one or two individual points. That is fine. There is not a problem with that. However, it is not always suitable. In some debates, people have to have the time to make a thoughtful speech, to accept interventions and to develop an argument. That cannot always be done in a truncated speech.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only Members of the European Parliament but parliamentarians from various long-established democracies recognise that the rights that we have had in this place far exceed what they have? Is there not a danger that we shall go their way, in the sense of sitting shorter hours and putting much more emphasis on activities outside this place? What we have established over the years—a full-time Parliament which sits for far longer than other Parliaments in Europe—is being slowly eroded and undermined. That is not good for parliamentary democracy.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is no accident that some people apparently spend an enormous amount of effort getting here and then cannot wait to spend all their time out on College green. I am old-fashioned enough to think that this is the place where we ask questions of the Government. If we have long recesses and ever longer periods when there is no one sitting in the House of Commons, Governments are not altogether unhappy because it means that they do not have to answer awkward questions. We are here to pose the awkward questions.
There are already whole areas of legislation that slip through. The European Standing Committees are disgracefully undermanned and underwomaned. Many people who are well known outside the House on every television programme on the face of God's earth are rarely to be found in those boring old Committees in which a lot of the work is done hour after hour by people asking awkward questions and examining the implications of legislation.
I believe that the Leader of the House is genuinely trying to help, but I am so worried about the way in which the House of Commons is going that I believe that the time is coming for some of us to make our views painfully clear to the electorate. The House must never become merely a backdrop for a few hours of cable television. It must never ever become a Chamber to which people come only when they think that they have their soundbites and their colours correct. It must not become a place to which people come to deal with just one tiny aspect of a complicated subject.
Parliament is dependent on the detailed knowledge and commitment of Members of all sorts of shapes and sizes. In the 30-odd years that I have been here, I have seen many people with diverse views, many of which I did not accept. They made complex speeches about aspects of legislation which I had not envisaged because I had no way of knowing the impact of a particular Bill. They succeeded in convincing the House of their view because they had something important to say. If we ever lose that diversity and become mere exponents of the brief intervention and the calm acceptance that Back Benchers are here merely as walk-ons, democracy will be damaged.
It is not the noise that people object to in this place. It is not the shouting and the constant turmoil. It is the failure to understand that that turmoil frequently reflects genuine depths of feeling out in the country. If that ceased to be expressed, the silence would be deafening, and the result would be much more like anarchy.

Mr. Christopher Gill: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is much in what she says with which I am bound to agree. I hope that the House will take notice of the advice that she gives from the standpoint of her long experience of parliamentary matters. I share her anxiety about the future of the House and the future powers of Back Benchers to express views and articulate the views of the people whom they represent. More and more I see the House becoming simply a rubber stamp for the Executive.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate that I speak from a particular standpoint. During the past year or so I have put myself in a position in which perhaps few Back Benchers have previously found themselves. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the only thing that really mattered at the end of the day was the vote. That is correct. It is becoming more apparent that the views expressed in the House are perhaps listened to, but in great measure disregarded because for understandable reasons the Executive have a view as to which way they want to go and which way they want to take the country.
Sometimes, as has been proved recently, the Executive want to take the country in a direction in which the country palpably does not want to go. My colleagues and I were able to stand up to the Government during the past 12 or 18 months because we knew that the people whom we represented thought that we were right in that great debate and that the Government were wrong. Yet throughout the debate it was apparent for all to see that the only thing that the Government recognised was, not the force of the argument—night after night my colleagues deployed an argument which was undoubtedly

cogent and irrefutable—but the force of the vote. The Government prevailed because they had more voting power than we so-called rebels.
The single issue to which I have referred is not the point. The point is what is happening to our Parliament. It is relevant to consider what is happening to our Parliament in the context of the European Union. It is apparent for all to see—no one can argue about it—that what is decided in treaties has to go through the House even though the vast majority of Back Benchers may feel that it is wrong. By signing the treaties, the Government have signed away the right that we as Back Benchers previously had to decide matters.
That was demonstrated on 24 November last year when I and eight of my colleagues had the party Whip withdrawn because we failed to support the Government in a vote to send £75 million more to the European Union. I venture to suggest that, had it been a domestic issue, we would not have been drummed out of the regiment. The Government had to deliver on that particular promise, as on all the other promises that they have made, because they have committed Britain and all the people whom we represent by signing the treaties. That is a particular development of the past 25 years. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, that is the wrong way for Parliament to proceed.
I am worried about how difficult it will be to explain to our electorate exactly how little power we have here as Back Benchers. At present, by and large, the electorate feel that when they send us to Parliament we can have a great influence over what goes on here, decide matters on their behalf and ensure that their view is fully represented.
We can certainly make representations, but I return to the point that ultimately the only thing that the Executive recognise is voting power. The measures that we are debating today will give more time for Back Benchers to ventilate their own private or constituency interests, but it will be at the expense of the time that we have as Back Benchers for scrutinising legislation and controlling the Executive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I now call Mr. Rooker.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be registered that others of us were waiting to speak when you called the Front-Bench spokesman? Anyone looking for an example of Front-Bench fixing could find it in the way the two-hour motion was slipped through on a Friday. I must say to the House authorities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I call Mr. Rooker.

6 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and many of my other hon. Friends have made valid points this afternoon, as did the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I also recall many of the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the last Labour Government.
While there has been an experiment this past year, what my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said was true. The parliamentary Session now coming to


an end has not by any stretch of the imagination been typical of previous Sessions during my 20 years in the House, and I suspect that the Session due to start on 15 November will not be typical either.
We must make it clear to our constituents that we are the law-making authority. Nothing involved in the package affects the law-making process in terms of new legislation. That is sad; I wish that it were otherwise and that we could start to reform the House and produce quality legislation. A package of 24 items was announced and agreed last December and today we are dealing with just four or five. They are all important matters, but we are not dealing with some of them—for instance, the scandalous way in which we deal with European legislation. I understand from the Select Committee report produced in July, which I read in the recess, that hon. Members have often attended European Standing Committees and virtually been asked to agree legislation of which the text has not even been available. That practice must stop, as it is unacceptable. We need more time to tackle that problem.
I have just one question of clarification to ask the Leader of the House. Will he confirm that the rule remains in force whereby, on Second Reading of a Finance Bill, the 10 o'clock rule does not apply, thus allowing any hon. Member who has not been called yet to stand in his or her place and be called to speak and continue the debate? I see that the Leader of the House nods in agreement. It is an important matter.
I can think of only three cases in the past 20 years when an hon. Member has stood up at 10 pm, after the Front Benchers have sat down, and has said, "I demand my right under the rules to be called," and has been called by the Speaker. The House is not happy when that happens. I am one of the three people to have made use of that procedure, and I was not in the House's good books. I wanted to explain to my hon. Friends that there are procedures that they can use in the House if they have a mind to, but they do not. Sometimes procedures that are not used go by default. I should hate hon. Members to lose the opportunity of raising issues on Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday mornings have proved useful. I used one in March to raise the subject of domestic violence and was told by the Minister not to worry as a Bill was coming from the other place covering all the issues that I had raised.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker: I cannot give way, because, for obvious reasons, my time is limited.
Change is slow to occur in this place. The sloth of this place is such that it took 34 months for us to begin the experiment proposed in the Jopling report. That is a thundering disgrace. I do not blame anyone in particular on either side of the House, but my example shows how slow the rate of change is in this place.
Procedure is not a tool in itself; it is a tool that we use to help and represent our constituents. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is important. We must master the procedure, not let it control us; we must shape it, mould it and modernise it.
Life should be tough for Ministers. The 13-week recess belongs in a bygone age, and it will be when we have a change of Government. We need more reform than is proposed in the measures that we are discussing today. We must create a useful Parliament which holds Government to account, creates good quality legislation and allows those affected by our legislation to wield greater influence over our proceedings. None of those improvements will be achieved through the measures, which represent a tiny pinprick in a package of reforms that is long overdue.

Mr. Newton: I, too, have only a few minutes for my speech. We have been trying to allow as many speeches as possible in the debate. It is ironic that what has been said this afternoon contrasts with the cause of the earlier delay: the attempt to tease out an agreement. That period was uncomfortable for me because of the number of people who demanded the exact opposite of what has been demanded of me this evening. The great majority of hon. Members wanted the changes that we have made because they felt them to be right. While I do not dismiss—as I never seek to dismiss—points that have been made, we should be clear that the support expressed from the Front Benches and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) today is widely expressed around the House, and has been over many months.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not take much time to respond to those who have spoken in support of the measures, but respond to those comments that were less supportive. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will ensure that Madam Speaker's attention is drawn to some of the comments made about the Wednesday morning arrangements.
I cannot recommend the amendments, or any variant of them, to the House. The Jopling report specifically recommended that private Members' business should be taken on a motion for the Adjournment, to ensure that no votes were taken during a morning sitting. That system has worked well and has commanded general support. I note the proposal of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but the transfer of private Members' business to Wednesday mornings has, as has already emerged, given Back Benchers more time on the Floor of the House.
There is no case to be made for providing a further four half-days. That would be contrary to the basis of the Jopling reforms, which were designed not to increase the amount of time that the House sits, but to decrease it to a more realistic level and provide a balance. In practice, the experiment has resulted in an increase in the time available for private Members' business.
There is some irony in the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) should have made the speech that he did. I find it difficult to think of anyone who has demonstrated more clearly the effectiveness of the Chamber and the role of the Back Bencher than my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends during our consideration of certain recent Bills. No one who has been in the House during the past two years could say that the influence of the House has diminished and that Whitehall and Ministers need not bother about it. That is an extraordinary description of the way in which I perceive


and feel that the place operates and is perceived. I am sorry that I have no time for further and fuller comment. I merely say that we also had a piece of vintage Bolsover.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 17.

Division No. 227]
[6.10 pm]


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Alton, David
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, James
Heald, Oliver


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hendry, Charles


Baldry, Tony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Bates, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Horam, John


Bellingham, Henry
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jack, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Bernard


Body, Sir Richard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Bowis, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Brandreth, Gyles
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bright, Sir Graham
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Knapman, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Butterfill, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Campbell-Savours, D N
Lidington, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Luff, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacKay, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maclennan, Robert


Congdon, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Major, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mandelson, Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Couchman, James
Martlew, Eric


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Merchant, Piers


Dicks, Terry
Michael, Alun


Dowd, Jim
Miller, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Elletson, Harold
Nelson, Anthony


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Norris, Steve


Evennett, David
Ottaway, Richard


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pawsey, James


Forth, Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Radice, Giles


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Rathbone, Tim


French, Douglas
Rendel, David


Gale, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Gillan, Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Gunnell, John
Rooker, Jeff


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sackville, Tom





Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tyler, Paul


Shersby, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Skeet Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Ward, John


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Spink, Dr Robert
Whitney, Ray


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Simon Burns.


NOES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Madden, Max


Barnes, Harry
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Bennett, Andrew F
Simpson, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Spearing, Nigel


Cox, Tom
Spellar, John


Dalyell, Tam
Winnick, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Flynn, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That—
(1) Standing Order (Consolidation bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:

"(1) In this order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill which falls to be considered by the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &., Bills).
(2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.
(3) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading, or for the third reading, of a consolidation bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(4) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and maybe decided at any hour, though opposed."
(2) Standing Order (Law Commission bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:

"(1) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a bill to which Standing Order (Consolidation bills) applies, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

(a) the House otherwise orders, or
(b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(2) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (1) above shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(3) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (1) above.

Motion made, and Question put,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(1) Standing Order (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills) below shall have effect:

"(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill

(a) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or
(b) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.
(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.—[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 19.

Division No. 228]
[6.21 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Gale, Roger


Alton, David
Gillan, Cheryl


Amess, David
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Baldry, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bates, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hawkins, Nick


Bellingham, Henry
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hendry, Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Horam, John


Bowis, John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Brandreth, Gyles
Jack, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Jenkin, Bernard


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butterfill, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knapman, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clappison, James
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Congdon, David
Lidington, David


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Luff, Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclennan, Robert


Couchman, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Major, Rt Hon John


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Malone, Gerald


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mandelson, Peter


Duncan, Alan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Elletson, Harold
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Miller, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Evennett, David
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Nelson, Anthony


Fabricant, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholls, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Norris, Steve


French, Douglas
Ottaway, Richard





Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Radice, Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Rooker, Jeff
Waterson, Nigel


Sackville, Tom
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wright, Dr Tony


Spencer, Sir Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spink, Dr Robert



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Simon Burns.


NOES


Austin-Walker, John
Martlew, Eric


Barnes, Harry
Meale, Alan


Bennett, Andrew F
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D N
Simpson, Alan



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Spearing, Nigel


Cox, Tom
Spellar, John


Dalyell, Tam
Winnick, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Flynn, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Gunnell, John
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(1) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) below shall have effect:

"(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.
(2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
(3) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved, the instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, unless—

(a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument shall not so stand referred, or
(b) the instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(4) Where a Member has given notice of—

(a) a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument, or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or


(b) a motion that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure,
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to such a committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(5) Each committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours (or, in the case of an instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours) after the commencement of those proceedings; and the committee shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put.
(6) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this order, in relation to any instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (5) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon and such question may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
(2) In paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) for the words "statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures" there shall be substituted the words "instruments (whether or not in draft)".
(3) Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)) shall be entitled "Delegated legislation (negative procedure)"; and at the end of the said Standing Order there shall be added the words "or be disapproved, or words to that effect".
(4) Standing Order (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) below shall have effect:

"(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).
(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
(5) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(b) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
(6) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)) shall be entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)"; in paragraph (1)(a) of the said Standing Order for lines 5 to 7 there shall be substituted the words "of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the"; in paragraph (1)(b) of the said Standing Order for the words "a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument" there shall be substituted the words "an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order)"; and the words "or draft instrument" shall be omitted wherever in the said Standing Order they occur.
(7) For paragraph (2)(e) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

"(e) motions relating to instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation));". —[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 14.

Division No. 229]
[6.32 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Alton, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Amess, David
Lidington, David


Arbuthnot, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Luff, Peter


Baldry, Tony
MacKay, Andrew


Bates, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Major, Rt Hon John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Malone, Gerald


Body, Sir Richard
Mandelson, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Martlew, Eric


Bowis, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Brandreth, Gyles
Merchant, Piers


Bright, Sir Graham
Michael, Alun


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Miller, Andrew


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Burt, Alistair
Moss, Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Nelson, Anthony


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Norris, Steve


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ottaway, Richard


Congdon, David
Page, Richard


Conway, Derek
Paice, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Pawsey, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Pickles, Eric


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Rathbone, Tim


Couchman, James
Rendel, David


Cran, James
Robathan, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Rooker, Jeff


Duncan, Alan
Sackville, Tom


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Elletson, Harold
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shersby, Sir Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)



Evans Jonathan (Brecon)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Soames, Nicholas


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Spellar, John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Evennett, David



Faber, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Forth, Eric
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Streeter, Gary


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


French, Douglas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gillan, Cheryl
Thomason, Roy


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Tredinnick, David


Gunnell, John
Trend, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Tyler, Paul


Hawkins, Nick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Heald, Oliver
Ward, John


Hendry, Charles
Waterson, Nigel


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Wells, Bowen


Horam, John
Whittingdale, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Jack, Michael
Willetts, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Wood, Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wright, Dr Tony


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Yeo, Tim


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkhope, Timothy



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Mr. Simon Burns.






NOES


Bennett, Andrew F
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Cox, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Wilkinson, John


Flynn, Paul
Winnick, David


Gill, Christopher



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Simpson, Alan
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(1) Standing Order (House not to sit on certain Fridays) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall not sit on ten Fridays in each Session to be appointed by the House.
(2) If a motion to appoint such Fridays is made by a Minister of the Crown the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(3) At its rising on the Thursday before each of the Fridays so appointed the House shall stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise.
(4) Unless the House shall have resolved to adjourn otherwise than from the previous Thursday to the following Monday, the Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

(a) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and
(b) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,
between eleven o'clock and three o'clock.
(2) Standing Order (Wednesday sittings) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past nine o'clock and shall between that hour and two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) Save as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the subjects for debate on the said motion shall be chosen by ballot under arrangements made by the Speaker; and no subject shall be raised without notice.
(3) On the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be "matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment".
(4) On not more than three Wednesdays in each Session to be appointed by the Speaker, the subject or subjects for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.
(5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised before half-past twelve o'clock, and not more than three between that hour and two o'clock.
(6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at two o'clock shall lapse and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that

should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon."
(3) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays " and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted; and in the proviso to paragraph (7) of the said Standing Order, after the word "o'clock" in line 57, there shall be inserted the words "in the evening".
(4) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall be repealed; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted.
(5) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted.
(6) In paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee) the word "and" in line 4 shall be omitted and after the word "Commission" in line 7 there shall be inserted the words "and

(c) to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such Wednesdays as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (4) of Standing Order (Wednesday sittings)".
(7) Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Periodic adjournments) below shall have effect:
When a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(8) Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Consolidated Fund Bills) below shall have effect:
When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(9) In paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) the words "or any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill" shall be omitted.—[Mr. Newton.]

Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (2)(1), after `shall', insert:
'except on four such days to be appointed by the House' —[Mr. Bennett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 113.

Division No. 230]
[6.43 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Gale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Gunnell, John


Boateng, Paul
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Mackinlay, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maclennan, Robert


Cox, Tom
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mandelson, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun






Rendel, David
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Andrew F. Bennell.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Amess, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arbuthnot, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Bates, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bellingham, Henry
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Luff, Peter


Bowis, John
MacKay, Andrew


Brandreth, Gyles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bright, Sir Graham
Malone, Gerald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Burt, Alistair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Butterfill, John
Merchant, Piers


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Nelson, Anthony


Clappison, James
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Congdon, David
Norris, Steve


Conway, Derek
Ottaway, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Page, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Paice, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Pawsey, James


Couchman, James
Pickles, Eric


Cran, James
Rathbone, Tim 


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Robathan, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)


Duncan, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Sackville, Tom


Elletson Harold
Shaw, David (Dover)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Soames, Nicholas


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Spink, Dr Robert


Evennett, David
Spring, Richard


Faber, David
Streeter, Gary


Forth, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Thomason, Roy


French, Douglas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gillan, Cheryl
Trend, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Waterson, Nigel


Hampson, Dr Keith
Watts, John


Hawkins, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Heald, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Hendry, Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Wood, Timothy


Horam, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)



Jack, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Simon Burns and


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: (c), in paragraph (5), leave out
'paragraphs (7), (8) and (9)'
and insert
'paragraph (7) shall be omitted, in paragraph (8) the words 'On four days other than Fridays' shall be omitted and the words 'On not less than four Mondays' shall be inserted, and in paragraph (9) the words from the first word 'House' to the first word 'Notice'.' —[Mr. Spearing.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 116.

Division No. 231]
[6.54 pm


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Madden, Max


Boateng, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D N
Michael, Alun


Corbyn, Jeremy
Simpson, Alan


Cox, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Spellar, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Winnick, David


Flynn, Paul



Gordon, Mildred
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gunnell, John
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Alton, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, James
Heald, Oliver


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hendry, Charles


Baldry, Tony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Horam, John


Bellingham, Henry
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jack, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bowis, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Bright, Sir Graham
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burns, Simon
Kirkwood, Archy


Burt, Alistair
Knapman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lidington, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Congdon, David
Luff, Peter


Conway, Derek
MacKay, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Malone, Gerald


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Couchman, James
Martlew, Eric


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Merchant, Piers


Duncan, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Nelson, Anthony


Elletson, Harold
Neubert, Sir Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Page, Richard


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Paice, James


Evennett, David
Pawsey, James


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Eric
Rathbone, Tim


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Rendel, David


French, Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Rooker, Jeff






Sackville, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spink, Dr Robert
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Streeter, Gary
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Dr. Liam Fox and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order (Short speeches) shall have effect:
The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith."—[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 12.

Division No. 232]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D N


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Baldry, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Cran, James


Bright, Sir Graham
Dowd, Jim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan, Alan


Burns, Simon
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Burt, Alistair
Elletson, Harold


Butterfill, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)





Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nelson, Anthony


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evennett, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Norris, Steve


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gillan, Cheryl
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pickles, Eric


Gunnell, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Rendel, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heald, Oliver
Rooker, Jeff


Hendry, Charles
Sackville, Tom


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Soames, Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Spellar, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Spring, Richard


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thomason, Roy


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trend, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tyler, Paul


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Watts, John


Luff, Peter
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Malone, Gerald
Wood, Timothy


Mandelson, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Martlew, Eric



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Merchant, Piers
Dr. Liam Fox and


Michael, Alun
Mr. Richard Ottaway.


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Simpson, Alan


Bennett, Andrew F
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Cousins, Jim
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Tellers for the Noes:


Gordon, Mildred
Mr. Tom Cox and


Madden, Max
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Standards in Public Life

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Before I open the debate, I should like to welcome to the Opposition Front Bench the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). For a long time, he sat—

Mr. Giles Radice: Silent.

Mr. Freeman: Literally silent, but it was a thoughtful silence. We welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. Although I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I will differ on policy, one thing is certain: the debate may be frank, but it will be courteous.
An all-day debate took place in the House on 18 May this year on the first report of the Nolan committee on standards in public life, so far as they affect the Government. Exactly two months later, on 18 July, the Government published their response to that report in the form of a White Paper and statements on the response were made here and in the other place.
I announced then that it was the Government's intention to have a further debate in this spill-over period. The debate would cover the proposed rules for business appointments for former Ministers before they were introduced from the start of the new Session, and the White Paper as a whole. I am pleased to be able to honour that commitment today.
I should like to make clear at the outset the very great degree of common approach between the Nolan committee and the Government. The Government's White Paper accepted all the major recommendations in the committee's report addressed to Government. Work on implementing a large number of those recommendations is now under way. Indeed, in some cases, it had already started before the White Paper was published.
I emphasise the fact that the Government accept the seven principles of public life set out in the Nolan report. They are important and they are worth repeating. The principles, which the committee set out as an over-arching framework to its recommendations, were selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. I am sure that the whole House will recommend and accept those seven principles. They are worth repeating constantly.
We are confident that those in public life in this country already adhere to those principles to a very high degree, as the committee acknowledged in its report. But we believe that the acceptance and implementation of the committee's recommendations will help to provide public reassurance on that point in areas where there may have been confusion or doubt.
I deal now with several specific and important issues to which I drew to the attention of the House in my statement on 18 July. I refer first to outside appointments taken up by former Ministers of the Crown. The Government believe that it is in the public interest that former Ministers with experience in government should be able to move into the private sector, not only to earn their living but to contribute to the United Kingdom

economy—a view that is shared by Lord Nolan and his committee. But it is equally important that, when a former Minister takes up a particular appointment, there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety.
A balance needs to be struck, and I believe that the guidelines on the acceptance of appointments outside Government by former Ministers of the Crown, which I placed in the Library on Monday, achieves that. The key point is that we want those with experience of business, professions and other walks of life to come into Parliament and into Government, and then have the opportunity to return.
The aims of the guidelines are to counter suspicion, however unjustified, first, that the statements and decisions of a serving Minister might be influenced by the hope or expectation of future employment with a particular firm or organisation, and, secondly, an employer could make improper use of official information to which a former Minister has had previous access.
The guidelines provide a means for former Ministers to ask the advisory committee on business appointments for its advice about any appointments that they wish to take up within two years of leaving office.
That is not a statutory system—in fact, Lord Nolan and the committee came down in favour of an advisory system and not a statutory one—but the expectation is that all Ministers will ask the committee for advice. I should make it plain that I have authority only to speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and the current Administration, but we expect that all Ministers, if they are placed in a position of wishing to take up outside appointments, will seek the advice of the committee. Indeed, that is the reason why the guidelines are cast in terms of the availability of the committee to provide advice. It is not a statutory, but an advisory system.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: I will certainly give way, but I should like first to finish the point because it is important.
If a Minister chooses not to seek the advice of the committee, that will inevitably become public. The published reports of the advisory committee will ensure appropriate scrutiny. That is the sanction.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has placed great emphasis on advice, yet one of the Nolan committee's recommendations that touches on taking up appointments, and for which the committee made it plain that advice was not necessary, was that no Cabinet Minister should take up an appointment in business for three months, and that that should be automatic and not a discretionary matter. Why have the Government rejected that?

Mr. Freeman: With great respect, the Government have not rejected that; they have accepted it, with one proviso—I am coming on to it—that there may well be circumstances in which the advisory committee might feel that even the three-month waiting period could be waived. The circumstances are very limited and special, such as a return to an occupation where there was absolutely no conceivable conflict of interest or, indeed, any possibility that there could be justifiable suspicion.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to the fact that permanent secretaries—I suppose that there is some


analogy—typically wait three months. The reason for the three-month waiting period for Cabinet Ministers and for permanent secretaries as a general rule is that they are privy to information about policy across all Departments: Government policy as a whole. Junior departmental Ministers are normally privy only to the policies of their particular Department. That is the reason for the three-month waiting period.
From my own experience, and in the experience of many right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, I know that, when one moves from one Department to another, one's knowledge tends to stale remarkably quickly, because of the pace of modern life and modern government. I therefore believe that there is justification for the three-month rule, since general knowledge of policy will quickly stale.
A two-year maximum waiting period applied to specific jobs for which departmental Ministers, including Secretaries of State, may have specific knowledge, as I say, may be caught in some limited circumstances—I hope limited circumstances—by a need to wait. That is because of their more specialist knowledge, experience and connections with prospective employers.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not want to delay the Minister on this point but I think that he is chopping logic. Either a provision is automatic or it is discretionary. Nolan recommended that it should be automatic that Ministers do not take up appointments in business for three months. The Government are providing the discretion to waive it. That is not an acceptance of the Nolan recommendation: it is a clear rejection of it. Indeed, it is less than candid to present it as the Minister has.

Mr. Freeman: If, with the leave of the House, I am able to make the winding-up speech, I shall certainly reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I will refresh my memory as to precisely what the Nolan committee said in relation to the three-month rule for Cabinet Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman speaks, it might provide him with an opportunity to develop the point further.
The advisory committee will consider each request on its merits. It will ask the former Minister for details of the appointment, and also for details of any direct or indirect contact that he or she has had with the prospective employer or any of its competitors. There will be a standard form for such information, although Ministers will of course be able to supplement it with a letter.
The advisory committee will then consider each appointment against tests to ensure that the appointment cannot be seen as being in some way a reward for past favours, that it will not give the prospective employer an unfair advantage through access to trade secrets of competitors or knowledge of unannounced Government policy, and that it will not give rise to justifiable public concern for any other specific reason.
But in doing that, the committee will wish to be satisfied that any concerns are justified and not mere speculation. The committee will need to balance any points under those tests against the desirability of former Ministers being able to move into business or other areas of employment, or the need for them to be able to start a new career or resume a former one.
The advisory committee will be able to advise the former Minister that it sees no objection to the appointment, or it may recommend a delay of up to two years before it is taken up; or for a similar period, it may recommend that a former Minister should stand aside from certain activities of his employment or profession. One thinks, for example, of a solicitor.
All former Ministers of Cabinet rank will be expected to wait three months after leaving office before they take up any appointment, unless the committee confirms that the proposed appointment is such that no considerations of improper advantage could apply. As I said earlier, if the committee considers that a longer waiting period is necessary, it will advise the former Minister accordingly. The committee will consider requests for advice in confidence and, of course, independently of the Government. Its advice will be made available for publication, but only when an appointment is taken up.
I would expect it to become the practice that the employing organisation would refer to the advisory committee's advice when it announces that a former Minister is joining that organisation. The committee will produce an annual report summarising the cases with which it has dealt in the previous year. It is intended that the guidelines will come into effect from the start of the next Session of Parliament on November 15.
The Nolan committee also made recommendations on the business appointments rules as they affect civil servants and special advisers. I intend to publish, for consultation, after the start of the next Session, changes to those rules, which will include bringing special advisers within them for the first time. We intend that the new rules, including those which affect special advisers, will come into effect on 1 April 1996, but I would expect any special advisers appointed between today and the end of March 1996 to agree to abide by the existing rules on a voluntary basis.
Next I should like to mention the civil service code, the final text of which I announced on Monday. We have proceeded with particular care in this area. Our objective has been to maintain and build on the consensus which greeted the original draft code produced by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I repeat the congratulations that the Government gave the Committee on its draft at the time. I see the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), in his place and I repeat, specifically for his benefit and for those on his Committee, our thanks.
Hon. Members will recall that we accepted the substance of all the recommendations of the Nolan committee on the code. Those were that the code should cover wrongdoing of which a civil servant is aware although not personally involved with; wider reporting of appeals by the civil service commissioners; a confidential appeal channel independent of a civil servant's line management; and introduction as soon as possible.
We published a revised draft in July to allow the civil service unions and others the opportunity to comment on the text, as it then incorporated the results of the initial consultation, including the Nolan committee recommendations. In fact, the further consultation has resulted in only a few very minor drafting alterations. I believe that we now have a succinct statement of the constitutional relationships and values that civil servants


must uphold, which in all substantive respects commands near universal approval. That consensus is a precious asset, on which we should now build.
We agreed with the Nolan committee's recommendation that the code should be implemented as soon as possible, without waiting for legislation. Subject to the necessary Order in Council, we shall introduce the code in December to take effect from 1 January 1996.
I turn now to a point put to me by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in questions on my statement on 18 July. He asked whether the text that the Government had proposed for a revised first paragraph of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"—which, as hon. Members will know, is published by the Prime Minister—could be amended to indicate that Ministers would withhold information from Parliament only in exceptional circumstances.
I have looked at "Erskine May" to see how far it has been a policy of successive Administrations to withhold information on certain matters. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) did the House a service in 1977–78 by putting a series of questions to the then Labour Administration, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a senior member, about departmental practice in withholding answers to questions. Such practice was extensive, and the results are summarised on page 292 of "Erskine May".
Since then, there have been many advances towards greater openness and I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that fact. Of course, the House would not have discussed the text of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" at all in 1978, as it was not published by any Prime Minister before 1992. The Security Service had not then been avowed. It has now been placed on a statutory footing and there is an oversight committee of parliamentarians. This is the first Government to set out a clear standard of open government and to refer disputes on the provision of information to the ombudsman to be tested against clearly expressed exemptions. All those developments have been initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
No Government in the world operates on a basis of total transparency. It would not serve the interests of good government to operate a policy of total openness about, for example, the operations of the security and intelligence services, matters of great defence or diplomatic sensitivity, or Cabinet proceedings. I believe that the House accepts that.
It would be true to say that the occasions when information will be withheld are "exceptional": the intention is to be as open as possible. But we must invoke the precision of the Government's code of practice on access to official information in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" without implying that the code would be definitive in a court of law, or indeed in Parliament, where the balance of public interest will need to be considered case by case.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The White Paper on open government contains a reference to the fact that we may appeal to the ombudsman, but the new proposal does not. It appears to me that paragraph 27 is being loosened and that the interests of the House, as opposed to those of the Executive, were better served by the old rubric. The new form of words refers to

withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
That is the heart of political debate in this place. The Scott inquiry examined those issues carefully and it will release its report soon.
Therefore, I believe that it is a little previous to suggest that this is the finished word on "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I do not think that I have expressed vigorously enough my deep opposition to the idea that this is a weakening of that higher standard which requires Ministers to account truthfully to the House and to the public.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I intend to propose an amendment to the text. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney asked me to reflect upon the published text and I shall now read my proposed change—which has been approved by the Prime Minister—into the record. I obviously welcome the comments and views of hon. Members.
The new formulation of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" shall be as follows:
Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public and should correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with established Parliamentary convention, the law, and any relevant Government Code of Practice".
I have provided three references: first, established parliamentary convention—I have given the reference in "Erskine May"—secondly, the law; and, thirdly, any relevant Government code of practice. My hon. Friend has also drawn attention to the document on open government that we have published already. I hope that the amendment provides greater clarity. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt wish to study the record and perhaps reflect further upon the debate.
My hon. Friend referred to the ombudsman. I believe that Ministers should be accountable to the House for their actions. I believe that the ombudsman has a role in examining the actions of Ministers and Departments with regard to openness and access to information by members of the public. However, if it is thought that a Minister has misled the House, he must come to the Dispatch Box and give an account of himself. The House, and not the ombudsman, must examine the evidence and bring him to account.

Mr. Peter Shore: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for living up to his promise and reflecting further on the wording of the proposed revised draft of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The crux of the matter is how the public interest is defined. I thought that the form of words proposed originally was very weak. It said that Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and withhold information
only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
I think that the criteria that the Minister has submitted for judging the public interest are helpful; I shall certainly study them with great care. However, I remind the Minister of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills a few moments ago. We are living in the shadow of the Scott report and I believe that, when it is published, it will throw a great deal of light on how


public interest has been interpreted in the past and what is and what is not proper for Ministers to disclose to the House and to the public.

Mr. Freeman: It is fair to say that, when the Scott report is published, studied and doubtless debated, we shall all have to reflect on what it says and on the sentiments and the wishes of the House in that regard. I cannot possibly anticipate what will be said.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect further on that point, and I have done so. The amendment to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" becomes effective immediately. Any further changes that may or may not be deemed appropriate will also become effective at the proper time. It is not a matter of the Prime Minister issuing instructions at the beginning of a Parliament and then forgetting about it; we have made an amendment that seeks to address the points raised and considered by Nolan.

Dr. Tony Wright: I ask the Minister to reflect on what he said about Ministers' differing accountability to the House and to the ombudsman. In a number of instances, the ombudsman has been able to extract information from Ministers that Members of Parliament were not able to extract. That occurred most recently with the very important report about fraud in the Treasury. Is it not crucial that the same rules about openness should apply across the public arena, whether it is in relation to Members of Parliament or members of the public? Should not the guidelines reflect that fact?

Mr. Freeman: The rules apply specifically to Ministers of the Crown. In terms of being called to account by Parliament, it would not be helpful if the ombudsman intervened and examined the alleged statement or misstatement. In my judgment, it better reinforces the accountability of Ministers if the Minister involved, either by personal statement or by debate, accounts to Parliament directly.
As for the role of the ombudsman in relation to open Government, the record so far has been successful. It was a sensible and constructive move and I see no degree of confusion or irreconcilability between the role of the ombudsman in relation to Government Departments and accountability of Ministers for the veracity of what they say to Parliament. I hope that what I have just said will have shown the House the clear and satisfactory progress that we are making on developing the White Paper proposals in those key areas.
One further part of the White Paper that I wish to mention briefly—as it takes up half the committee's recommendations addressed to Government—deals with quangos. The Nolan committee divided its recommendations into those that affected appointments to certain quangos—in this case executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies—and those that dealt with the general propriety of board members and, in one or two cases, the staff of those bodies.
On appointments, the Government were able to accept virtually all the committee's recommendations, many of which in practice built on the public appointment unit's review of guidance on public appointments. That was issued at the beginning of the year, formed the mainstay

of the Government's evidence on public appointments and had already been agreed by Ministers by the time the committee published its report. The committee's main additional recommendations to that framework were that panels or committees with an independent element should be set up to advise on all appointments to executive NDPBs and NHS bodies; and that a new, independent commissioner for public appointments should be appointed. The essential principle of all such appointments is that they should be based on merit or qualification for the job.
In their response, the Government set out in some detail the way that they envisaged the advisory panels working in practice. They proposed that such arrangements should be comprehensively in place by July 1996. The Government also accepted the proposal for the commissioner and in my statement of 18 July I announced that the post would be publicly advertised immediately. That duly happened, and the arrangements for appointing the commissioner are now well advanced. We should be in a position to announce the new commissioner later this month.
On the general governance of quangos, the committee made a number of recommendations concerning the implementation of best practice procedures through, for example, codes of conduct and openness, building in each case on existing Government initiatives. The Government accepted those recommendations, and they are being implemented.
Among the most important recommendations were those proposing a review of the legal framework governing propriety, accountability and the arrangements for external audit in public bodies. We expect to complete that review by the end of the calendar year. I know that many with interests in the area, including the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), contributed material to the review. We shall pay careful attention to what they have said, and publish proposals in a consultation paper.
In his speech to the House on 18 May, my right hon. Friend and predecessor the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) paid tribute to the selflessness—a Nolan principle, as I have noted—of the large numbers of people who serve on public bodies for little or no remuneration. I should like to echo his remarks, and I am sure the whole House joins me in that commendation.
We do not view non-departmental public bodies from the viewpoint of appointments or propriety alone. They exist to do a useful job; they are not set up when there is no need for them or kept needlessly in existence when their function is finished. Since 1979, we have abolished hundreds of NDPBs. I am pleased to announce that when annual figures are next published in December this year, they will show a further reduction of more than 100, which will mean a net fall of more than 40 per cent. since 1979, so I hope that the House will see that it is possible to combine economy and efficiency with the highest standards of propriety and that the Government are doing both.
The Government have never been reluctant to take any steps necessary to improve the quality of the country's public life and public services. I hope that I have clearly outlined to the House how we are now doing that through our White Paper response to the Nolan committee and the current work to implement that response. I know that they


are issues of considerable importance to the House and I look forward to hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members accordingly. With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to points raised in the debate when we conclude it.

Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his kind remarks. Of the 16 years that I have been in the House, 13 have been relatively silent. I spent 10 years as the Opposition Chief Whip, one further year as a Whip and two years as the parliamentary private secretary to our former leader, Neil Kinnock. It could well be that already people are saying to themselves, "I liked him better when he was silent." I hope that is not the case. We shall see.
I look forward very much to debating with the right hon. Gentleman these and others matters over the coming months, and I am sure that, as he says, even though we may differ—not violently but certainly substantially—at least the debate will always be courteous.
I thank the Minister for fulfilling his promise in his statement to the House on 18 July 1995 at column 1473 first to publish a text for consultation on guidelines to Ministers accepting business appointments before introducing the rules at the beginning of the next Session; secondly, to have a debate on the White Paper as a whole in the spillover session; and thirdly, to consult on an extension of business appointment rules to Ministers' special advisers.
The Minister was courteous enough to answer two written questions of mine on Monday 30 October and to place other material in the House of Commons Library. However, I have to say—I hope he does not think that I am being churlish—that the press had the information at 2.30 pm, but it did not come my way until 5 pm. I know that Madam Speaker, and I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker, will have some views on that, as Madam Speaker has expressed her views from time to time.
The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), in opening the civil service debate on 23 March 1995, quoted the November 1994 report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil, which said:
The British Civil Service is a great national asset. Since the 1870s, it has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations. Governments have always seen it as their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successors."—[Official Report, 23 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 549.]
Let me, on behalf of my party, wholeheartedly endorse that view.
Before I was elected to the House, I spent 10 years in the private sector, nine years in the public sector and a number of years in the voluntary sector. I may be unique in that experience. Each sector has enormous strengths. Each has much to learn from the others. None has the monopoly of wisdom. In particular, the idea that the business culture is or should be paramount has in my view been profoundly damaging to our society and democracy. Hopefully, that short-sighted, arrogant philosophy has almost run into the sand. If not, it will do so shortly after the present Government are swept out of office whenever they have the courage to call a general election.
Let us make no mistake. We would not be having tonight's debate without the deliberations of the Nolan committee. The Prime Minister set up the Nolan committee only because his Government were sinking beneath a sea of allegations of sleaze. That was the act of a man desperate to sweep those allegations from the tabloid front pages into the long grass of the lengthy consideration by the Nolan committee.
On 20 May, the Prime Minister announced to the Sunday newspapers:
I not only accept the broad thrust of Nolan's recommendations, I agree with Nolan.
Many of us heard the Prime Minister say in the House today that he accepted the broad thrust of Nolan's recommendations. If he agrees with them, let the Prime Minister support Nolan and vote for the implementation of his recommendations in full on Monday night.
Business appointments are a bone of contention. The Chancellor of the Duchy's predecessor claimed in his evidence to the Nolan committee that no change to the existing arrangements was required. Other parliamentarians, such as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and Lord Younger, were critical of the current position, and Nolan accepted their concerns. Nolan recommended, on page 54 of his first report that
a system similar to the civil service business appointment rules should apply to Ministers.
Nolan helpfully set out the salient features of the civil service scheme on page 52:

"i) all civil servants at grades 1 and 1A … and 2 … must submit their future job plans to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for approval …
ii) they must seek approval both for their first job and for any others within two years of leaving the civil service."
Bearing in mind that far more public concern had been expressed about former Ministers taking up appointments than about civil servants doing so, the innocent layman would expect the rules laid down for Ministers to be at least as stringent as those laid down for civil servants. On the face of it, that is not so. When the Chancellor of the Duchy issued guidelines on Monday, the words
must submit their future job plans
and
must seek approval for both their first job
had become "may seek advice" for Ministers. An obligation placed on civil servants had become an option for Ministers.
The Chancellor of the Duchy said in his statement to the House on 18 July:
We accept the Nolan committee's recommendation that Ministers should be brought within the scope of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1473.]
He claimed to be implementing Nolan in full. When the right hon. Gentleman briefed the press on Monday, he repeated that claim. When he spoke on television the other day, he made the same claim, yet it is clear that the scheme for Ministers is far weaker than that for civil servants—against the Nolan recommendation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy will argue that is irrelevant, because, if a Minister did not seek advice—or having sought advice, did not heed it—that will seep into the public domain and lead to censure in the press. To


me, that "may" is dishonest. Loosely translated, it means that Ministers had better seek advice or else. If that is the case, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so? Would it not have been better to say, "Ministers will be expected to seek advice," or even, "Ministers should seek advice"? After all, in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the phrase "Ministers should" appears in almost every paragraph.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy is looking for an effective sanction to buttress "Ministers should seek advice" rather than "Ministers may seek advice", would it not be far more satisfactory to place a duty or even an expectation on the business advisory committee to make it public that a former Minister had not sought advice—or having sought it, had not heeded it? That would be far better than the somewhat dubious practice of someone—not the Minister, of course—whispering behind a hand to some journalist, so that information seeps into the public domain.
I still believe that the guidelines are unsatisfactory and I urge the Chancellor of the Duchy to withdraw them, even at this late stage, and to replace them with new guidelines that will fulfil his promise to implement Nolan in full—especially as the right hon. Gentleman reiterated that he is seeking to aid the Prime Minister in his determination
to uphold the highest standards in public life".
After the Chancellor of the Duchy made his statement to the House on 18 July, two of his former colleagues took up lucrative business appointments. The former Foreign Secretary went to NatWest for a sum rumoured to be £200,000, for a three-day week, and the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), a former Minister for Export Trade, joined his long-standing friend and patron, Lord Prior, at GEC for more than £100,000.
It is disturbing that both claim to have voluntarily submitted themselves to the advisory committee under the chairmanship of Lord Carlisle. It is difficult to disagree with the conclusion of The Guardian leader on 4 September:
If the Whitehall machine gave Mr. Needham a clean bill of health then it is the system itself which is sick.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy does not like The Guardian, perhaps The Independent has more credence. The headline to its leader the same day shouted "Nolan is not enough". The leader writer claimed:
Lord Carlisle has got it wrong. He should have insisted on a decent interval between Mr. Needham's period as a trade minister and his appearance on the GEC board … The Needham case is a timely reminder that, Nolan notwithstanding, the battle is not over yet".
As to the civil service code, I congratulate the Government on seeing sense. The code is a major step in the right direction and although I share the fears of the Council of Civil Service Unions that the code does not go far enough, we nevertheless welcome it. Why should there be a new civil service code? Permanent revolution within the service has not only affected morale, leaving a pall of insecurity over its work, but has fragmented the service—which has diluted its sense of unity of purpose underpinned by common values.
More fundamentally, as the clash of cultures has deepened and become all-pervading, an increasing number of civil servants have complained of unwarranted pressure from a variety of sources. The code ought to help in that direction. It was seen as having several advantages. It was envisaged that the code would have
some clear public status, public endorsement going beyond the government of the day.
The code would have far wider currency than existing documents, being available to all civil servants and to the public. The process of drawing up the code would itself encourage far wider public and parliamentary debate. The code would provide far greater clarity about the role, duties and responsibilities of civil servants. Finally, the code would be a unifying force in the increasingly heterogeneous civil service.
I see two great advantages in the code. First, there is the onus placed on Ministers to read the code, to take notice of it and not to ask civil servants to act outside its provisions. The other advantage is the institution of an independent appeals procedure, which is wholly welcome. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said of the code on 18 July:
we still believe that legislation is necessary. If the Government were to press ahead with it, they would have our full co-operation."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1475.]
That remains our position.
It is revealing that the Government's first position was that the new code was not necessary. Fortunately, after the powerful inquiry conducted by the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Government saw sense, and some consensus has emerged from the subsequent consultations.
I hear rather dark rumours to the effect that the Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend is to be abolished. The House would regret that. The quality of its work has been extremely high, and it has gained enormous respect throughout the civil service and in Parliament. The House will wish to join me in thanking my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Sub-Committee for its outstanding work.
I have a few reservations about the code. It is arguable that it does not fully address the relationship between civil servants and Parliament, especially parliamentary Select Committees. Secondly, the code does not adequately deal with a civil servant's relationship with the public. It is possible, for example, that Scott will argue that civil servants have a duty to the public, interest over and above the duty that they have to Ministers.
Finally, the Chancellor of the Duchy will agree that the acid test of the code's effectiveness will be how it is implemented and received in the civil service. He will know that the Council of Civil Service Unions argues with some force that central Departments in the civil service should issue detailed advice and guidance to departments on a wide range of issues.
The Chancellor of the Duchy has been courteous enough to make an announcement to the House on "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and we thank him for that. We shall study it with some care. Again, the House has Nolan to thank for developments on "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". Nolan recommended that


the Prime Minister puts in hand the production of a document drawing out from 'Questions of Procedure for Ministers' the ethical principles and rules which it contains to form a free-standing code of conduct or a separate section within the new QPM.
The Government responded by accepting Nolan's proposals, with some reservations, and producing a draft of the new ethical part of the QPM.
There was some public criticism that the new draft would encourage ministerial secrecy. Nolan proposed a draft which included the words:
Ministers must not mislead Parliament. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public.
The Government draft said:
Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public … withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
Fears were expressed that Ministers could withhold information at will because they define the public interest.
The Observer of 16 July revealed that the Cabinet had, the previous week, accepted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Duchy to delete the public interest defence. The Times of 11 July claimed that the new draft would be published immediately following Cabinet approval. On 18 July, in his statement to the House when responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, the Chancellor of the Duchy referred to Cmnd. 2290, "Open Government", for a further definition of when disclosure would not be in the public interest. There are more than four pages of exemptions in that document, which the right hon. Gentleman claims is still under consultation more than two years after publication.
On 18 July, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the Chancellor of the Duchy said:
I shall come back to the House during the debate"—
that is, this debate—
with perhaps more thoughtful proposals on how more generally we can either cross-refer or define those circumstances."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1484.]
Now the Chancellor of the Duchy has fulfilled his promise. He has come back to us, and we shall study what he has produced with great care.
It would have been possible to range even more widely over the subjects touched on by the Chancellor of the Duchy, but I know that other colleagues want to contribute to the debate. I shall therefore say only that we are indebted to Nolan for making the recommendations on the subjects before us this evening. I am glad that the Government have taken most of them on board. I should be glad to hear what the Chancellor of the Duchy has to say about my submission that his recommendation on business appointments is rather weaker than Nolan recommended. I look forward greatly to future debates on the civil service in this House.

Mr. Tom King: I know that the whole House will join me in welcoming the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) back to a more audible role at the Dispatch Box. I appreciate his remarks about the work of the Nolan committee. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and I are the holders of a unique letter of appointment. Other members of the Nolan committee were advised of the expenses that

they could claim for. We were advised that, as we were already in receipt of public funds, no money would be available to pay us for any of our work.
It would have been intolerable if Nolan's work had been consigned to the wastepaper basket. That is why I so greatly appreciate the role played by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. His was not the most exciting speech that I have ever heard in the Chamber—he quite properly eschewed that—but he took us meticulously through the range of issues with which he has been dealing. Problems of standards in public life, and the leadership that we in the House ought to exhibit, are sometimes the subject of brilliant illumination, but more often they are matters of painstaking attention to detail of the type that the Nolan committee has performed.
Sometimes I think that these matters should not be the subject of so much party political exchange. This afternoon I resented the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He does no one any service by trying to turn these issues into acutely party political ones. On the contrary, they are in the main matters about which each and every Member of the House will have to make up his mind.
The committee's first report included 54 recommendations, to which the Government's response has been effective, more than adequate and prompt. I should like to put that clearly on the record.
I am glad that the Government accepted the recommendations about Ministers. I believe that that was right. I am not breaching any confidences by disclosing that there was a strong view across the Nolan committee that the procedures that existed for civil servants should be replicated as far as was sensible for Ministers. We recognised that there were differences for Ministers. Civil servants are in the main able to anticipate and plan their retirement. That is not always true of every occupier of the Front Benches.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was unkind in one respect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has said that Ministers may ask the advisory committee. He drew attention today to the word "may". He made the point that the committee was advisory and non-statutory. It seemed to me extraordinarily courteous of my right hon. Friend to say that he did not wish in advance to bind any other Administration that might at some long distant date possibly occupy the Government Benches.
He discharged his responsibility clearly and personally on behalf of the Prime Minister to make it clear that Ministers in the current Administration would be required and expected to ask the advisory committee about any appointment. I want to hear from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland an unequivocal pledge that, if at any time in the future there were a Labour Administration, the same requirement imposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy would apply to any Minister leaving a Labour Administration.

Mr. Derek Foster: I have no hesitation in giving such a pledge. I intended to say that I was grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for making it clear in his opening remarks about business appointments that


the Prime Minister and the Government would expect Ministers to seek the committee's advice. That was a useful clarification of the guidelines issued on Monday.

Mr. King: I am grateful for that, as I know the whole House will be. The right hon. Gentleman may not be so pleased with what I am now about to say.
I resented very much the remarks that he made in reference to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). They were quite uncalled for. Although there was a brief mention of the issue in the tabloid press and other newspapers, once people had considered the matter, they observed that in both cases my right hon. Friends behaved with propriety. That is a good test. It is not a current issue at present.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has gone to work for and make his experience available to a British bank operating in extremely competitive markets around the world. He will find George Shultz operating for the Americans. He will find French diplomats and politicians and German and Italian former leading Ministers who occupied different posts now seeking to assist their national economic effort.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney. He could easily have gone off and written a few more of the excellent thrillers that he writes—indeed, I am sure that he will. He will be working full time. However, he will make his contribution in the economic field.
The real point that I want to bring out relates to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North. It is no secret—indeed, it is well known in the House and it is certainly well known in industry—that my right hon. Friend was an outstanding ambassador for Britain. He was a first-class Minister for Trade, many would say probably the best that we have had for a long time. He struck fear into our foreign competitors because he was extremely effective in the relationships that he established and the help that he gave.
I listened to what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland had to say. I do not impugn in any way his patriotism, which I respect, but the people who would have been most pleased to hear what he said are our French and German competitors. They would have liked to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North told to do nothing for two years in the fields in which he worked.
It was in the interests of our nation that, as soon as my right hon. Friend left his ministerial role, he should make himself available in the fields in which he had operated to maintain efforts in exports, provided that he did not discriminate unfairly between one British company and another. I am not aware of a single complaint from a British company. My right hon. Friend's assistance is to the benefit of Britain and many of our constituents who work in the factories that my right hon. Friend helped to obtain orders for in recent years.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North is good in exports, why should we wear a hair shirt as a country and ban him from taking any part in exporting? Why should he not do so, provided that he does not make improper use of information that he gained

as a Minister? Although the system is not yet set up, my right hon. Friend checked with Lord Carlisle to find out whether he thought that it was improper for him to act in that way. His energies will be employed to support British companies. I believe that that is absolutely right. If Opposition Members say that that is wrong, their views do not coincide with the best interests of Britain.

Mr. Derek Foster: I have the highest regard for the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). We joined the House together. We were members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry together. He was a very good Trade Minister. However, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) shares the myopia of a good number of his hon. Friends in not understanding the outrage, not of Labour Members of Parliament—that is not of much significance—but of the people outside. They are tired of the long parade of former Ministers going to lucrative jobs in the City or elsewhere. They do not understand it, and they are fed up. That is the mistake that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is the mistake that his Government are making and that the Chancellor is making in providing a weak scheme.

Mr. King: That was a monstrous intervention. The right hon. Gentleman talks about outrage outside as if it was not stimulated by the comments made in here. He is at it again. It is disgraceful. No one in America said to James Baker when he went to work for the company for which he now works that he must not do it. George Shultz, who was a distinguished Secretary of State, worked for Bechtel. My old sparring partner, Dick Cheney, the former United States Secretary of Defence during the Gulf war when I discharged the role of Secretary of State for Defence, is now president of a major international company called Haliburton, a United States company. No one in America suggests that he is feathering his nest. There is a respect for such people of ability, who made a sacrifice for a period.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland must know from his previous incarnation as Chief Whip that many people in the House make sacrifices to be Members of Parliament and represent their constituencies. They do not receive the financial rewards that they could enjoy in outside activities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney certainly made sacrifices for many years when he worked for his constituents and in the Government. Yet manifestly he is capable of making a much greater contribution and could have advanced himself considerably more than he did.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The United States has much tougher rules and regulations on employment after government service. The key is the rule about employment in a related field. The anxieties expressed are invariably about people going from a field of activity in government to a private sector company operating in a related field. In the United States, to do so is a criminal offence and could result in a prison sentence.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows that that is precisely the point that we have tackled in the Nolan committee. That is why we say that a system must be set up to make sure that there is no abuse. But if the matter is taken to the ultimate political correctness, it will be manifestly to


the disadvantage of this country. That is why I am attacking that attitude. I think that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland understands that point.

Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and, to some extent, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), seem to be overlooking one fact. Part of the concern felt outside the House is due to the fact that people take up lucrative jobs to which they give a considerable amount of energy and enthusiasm while, at the same time, remaining as members of the legislature and receiving £33,000 a year. George Shultz is not a member of Congress; he has given up his role in government and the legislature.
In Poland, where there is a developing legislature, if politicians decide to take jobs outside the Administration, they take only half their legislative salary. Such action gives a signal to the electors that the politicians have another interest. I am not trying to say that it is wrong for people to have other jobs—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a speech—he should be making an intervention.

Mr. King: I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's drift. If he reads the Nolan report, he will see that we set out clearly at the start that we believe that this House is a better place and serves democracy better because its Members do not have limited backgrounds without a wider range of experience or the capacity to embrace other activities.
Last night, in another place, Lord Jenkins made a speech on the Griffiths report, the Lords' version of the Nolan report. That experienced former Labour Member of Parliament and Minister, who subsequently joined another party, was passionately in favour of not having full-time Members of Parliament. He recognised the importance of having Members of Parliament with outside experience and interests to bring to the House.
It should also be possible that ex-Ministers—but only subject to vetting—take up outside interests. It is right that the arrangements that we proposed and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted should be incorporated in the guidelines. This is the right step to take, so that the experience of those with outside interests can be used to benefit our country.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If my speech concentrates mainly on criticisms or questions, I might give the distorting impression that I do not broadly welcome the Government's response to the Nolan committee's report. I welcome it because the committee has moved quickly, and across a broad canvas, to tackle matters of considerable significance to the running of our democracy.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has given much time and effort in the past year to a job for which he received no pecuniary reward. Perhaps he, like the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), made sacrifices in order to carry out that job in the public interest.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater if he seeks to rest his argument too heavily on comparisons with the United States, which has a different political culture. In the United States, it is common for senior figures from industry to parachute into the executive arm of government and then return to industry. It is not—or has not historically been—so common in this country for such moves to be made.
I strongly agree with my noble Friend Lord Jenkins that it is desirable for people with a wide experience of life outside Parliament to contribute to our debates in the legislature. I would deplore the development of purely professional Members of Parliament, who start as researchers, graduate up the ladder of preferment to Cabinet office, then move out into some other lucrative job. That would not produce a House of Commons that truly represented the nation's interests. There has been some homogenisation in the House since I first became a Member of Parliament nearly 30 years ago. There is less diversity of background among Opposition Members, and also among Conservative Members.
The Nolan committee worked rapidly and carried out a firefighting job. Due to the tone of today's debate we have almost forgotten the circumstances in which the committee was set up. There was widespread concern about a number of highly publicised episodes involving Members of Parliament and Ministers, which caused the widest unease and created the sense that standards were slipping. There was a sense that many of the conventions on which our democratic workings rested were inadequate to cope with the temptations of modern, competitive, entrepreneurial life.
Those concerns were justified. I note that the Nolan committee said that the majority of Members of Parliament were upright citizens and not reprehensible—I am sure that is true. But the spectacular cases that came to our notice—some of which are still under consideration in the Privileges Committee and some of which are under scrutiny in the Scott inquiry—made it imperative that the Government move quickly.
We must not believe that the Nolan report, as published, can be the last word on the matter. The Nolan committee produced a good report quickly, but it was a report in time and we live in a fast-moving world, so we must return to reconsider some of the issues in a different context. The firefighting job, which was done so well by the Nolan committee, does not get to the root of many of the problems.
It is not possible in the ambit of today's debate fully to explore the necessary alternative approaches, but I shall allude to them, as I did in my evidence to the Nolan committee. Today's world needs more checks and balances built into the system. We need greater scrutiny of Executive action by the courts—a trend that has already accelerated in the past decade—and a greater sense of constitutionalism underpinning the conventions that have been taken for granted and have been found inadequate.
Constitutionalism requires the acceptance by all arms of government that there are limits to the power that the Government can exercise, and that those limits are defined by society, enjoy the acceptance of society and should not be transgressed. That sense does not permeate our system as it does those of most of the developed democracies.
We have sometimes taken pride in the fact that we have a flexible, quickly developing unwritten constitution. The down side of not having a written constitution is that there are no agreed norms of public behaviour on which we can rely.
It is interesting to see from the agreed code of conduct for civil servants, one of the achievements of this exercise, how we are still hung up on the Victorian constitution and the concept that civil servants' first loyalty is to Ministers of the Crown. In a certain mechanical sense, that is undoubtedly true, but in any other country civil servants' first loyalty would be to a written constitution to ensure no transgression of authority and no unintended use of powers. At all times, that would be their overriding responsibility.
I was interested to notice that we have taken a small step towards recognising some overriding responsibility that goes beyond that of loyalty to Ministers of the Crown—the reference in the code of conduct to loyalty being subject to the provisions of the code. That is a most helpful step, because it means that what Ministers see as being in the public interest is not the last word. The code defines general principles that could override the Minister's perception of where the public interest lies.
I come now to some matters of detail that I hope the Minister will be able to clarify when he replies. He may already have made some announcements on these matters that I have failed to note. The first refers to the only matter in the report that deals with Members of Parliament—bribery. It states that the law on bribery as it impacts on Members of Parliament is rather obscure and the Select Committee, set up to consider standards in public life, asked that the matter should be referred to the Law Commission. The Government undertook to do that following the debate on the matter. We have had that debate, so I now ask the Minister whether the matter will be referred to the Law Commission. It would be helpful if it were.

Mr. Mackinlay: It is interesting that, if the Law Commission proposes a Bill in respect of the bribery of Members of Parliament, following a decision of the House earlier this evening, the Second Reading of that measure will be taken not on the Floor of the House but in Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: As the hon. Gentleman says, that is interesting.
I come now to the responsibility of the Prime Minister for his Ministers' behaviour. This is an area in which the Government appear to have rejected the recommendation of the Nolan committee. In paragraph 13, on page 49, the committee recommends that the first paragraph of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" should be amended to say that it will be for the Prime Minister to determine whether Ministers have upheld the highest standards in any particular circumstance.
The reason given by the Government in their White Paper for departing from that seems specious and somewhat disturbing, not only theoretically but in practice. The reason given is that it will
go too far towards suggesting that the Prime Minister's relationship with his Ministerial colleagues is that of invigilator and judge. And it would not reflect the responsibility that Ministers should have to justify their conduct to Parliament.

That reflects a confusion among Ministers. Parliament has no role in appointing Ministers, nor any responsibility for the way in which they conduct themselves. It can show its displeasure and it may diminish a Minister's reputation, but it would be historically unusual for Parliament to eject a Minister on grounds of conduct. That responsibility lies with the Prime Minister, and that should not be avoided.
However, that creates an immediate practical problem. If the Prime Minister shrugs off that responsibility and says that it is not for him, who is responsible for deciding whether the behaviour, against which a complaint has been made, is acceptable or unacceptable? That reflects a couple of unfortunate episodes involving the Cabinet Secretary in which he was called upon to investigate allegations of ministerial impropriety and to pronounce. That is a road down which we should not go. To have permanent secretaries or Cabinet Secretaries pronouncing on the behaviour of Ministers seems to be to ask them to exercise a political function or even a quasi-judicial function that will not strengthen the independence of the civil service. I ask Ministers to look again at that point rather carefully.
With regard to the conduct of and procedure for Ministers—I am not trying to make fun of an earlier exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Home Secretary—I wonder whether there is a genuine confusion in the Government's mind on the question of accountability and responsibility. The new rules for the conduct of and procedure for Ministers that are set out in the Government's White Paper speak of Ministers being
accountable to Parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies".
That seems on the face of it to be a clear statement, but it does not lie nicely with the statement made by the Home Secretary in the House on 19 October when he said:
I am personally accountable to the House for all matters concerning the Prison Service. I am accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the service. The director general is responsible for day-to-day operations."—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 517.]
If that kind of distinction made by the Home Secretary on that occasion between accountability and responsibility is sustained, it makes almost complete nonsense of the effectiveness of the new code of conduct and procedure for Ministers, which claims, I repeat, that Ministers are accountable not only for policies but for decisions and actions of their Departments and agencies. There is a need to clarify the exact rubric under which Ministers are acting in that area.
With respect to the question of Ministers' business appointments, on which I intervened in the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I do not wish to labour the point, but it is clear that Nolan recommended that there should be an automatic waiting period of three months before Ministers took up their jobs. It made the point specifically and it was right to say that three months would not affect any question of misconduct—it would not mean that bad behaviour was less or more likely. But it referred to the perception of simply eliding the responsibility of Ministers into a new business job. It spoke clearly on that issue. There was no question of it being a discretionary matter on which advice should be sought. It was automatic.
In that, the Government seem to have departed from what was recommended, and that is a mistake. Whether we like it or not, even in the case of the most public-spirited Ministers who have, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), experienced sacrifice—I think that he meant financial sacrifice as Secretary of State for Defence because it is hard to think what other sacrifices were involved, although perhaps family life and a number of other things could be said to have been sacrificed—there is much to be said for an interval of three months. There is also much to be said for suggesting that it will not deprive the public of services of value if such a person takes a holiday for three months before taking up his new job.
We have made remarkable progress on the civil service in recent months, but I do not think that that can be the last word. What we have is not exactly a whistleblower's charter. There are some interesting questions to be discussed about civil servants' duties. Under one of the provisions of paragraph 11 of the new code—as I read it—civil servants have a duty to disclose illegalities and criminal behaviour, but that is the extent of their disclosure duty. They are permitted to communicate observations of other behaviour that is outside the terms of the code, but they are not required to do so.
It is at least arguable that, in the public interest, there should be a duty—I would not like to define it tonight—to disclose other matters that come to the attention of civil servants: behaviour that might not be illegal, but whose consequences might be hazardous to the public or the environment, for example.
As the Minister said, much of the report is devoted to quangos. I probably would not do the House a favour by devoting a further 10 minutes to that subject; I shall simply say that, although admirable steps have been taken to ameliorate the current system, I do not think that setting up quangos to vet quangos is the whole answer. As the Minister will know, I consider that many of the responsibilities of quangos ought to be transferred to elected bodies as soon as possible, but it may be beyond the scope of this debate to explore the constitutional changes that would be necessary to achieve that.
I feel that Parliament, rather than an appointed body, should vet some of the more senior appointments that are made—and may properly be made—by the Executive. I have in mind major jobs such as that of Director General of the Prison Service. If Mr. Derek Lewis, for instance, had had to give an account of himself to a Select Committee of either House, the arguments for and against would have been fully deployed and considered, and there would have been a greater degree of public consent behind his appointment. I suspect that, if that had happened, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Lewis's appointment would not have been unravelled in a manner which, whatever the outcome, could not have been other than embarrassing to the Government.

Mr. Mackinlay: George Shultz's appointment had to be confirmed by Congress.

Mr. Maclennan: To go through the procedure of advise and consent would be to risk falling into the trap into which—with presumption—I advised the right hon. Member for Bridgwater not to fall: the trap of trying to extrapolate from American experience and apply it here. Nevertheless, there is much to be said for adapting such a process of consideration.
I end as I began, by expressing my satisfaction that so much has been done in such a short time.

Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome the two new faces on the Opposition Front Bench. They have become "shadows", but I congratulate them on coming out of the shadows and emerging from the Trappist corners to which they were previously confined.
I shall make a very short speech. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will be pleased about that, because he will be making his maiden speech, and should be given every opportunity. I shall confine my remarks to the civil service code, about which I spoke in our March debate.
I welcome the draft code produced by the Minister on 30 October. In almost all material respects it is the same as the Civil Service Sub-Committee's code, as published in the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. I am pleased that it has been broadly supported both by the Government and by the Opposition parties, and endorsed by the Nolan committee, with minor but useful modifications. The main modification was that the draft civil service code should be revised to cover circumstances in which a civil servant, while not personally involved, is aware of wrongdoing or maladministration taking place. I consider that a sensible modification. Following consultation, the code has now been published by the Government and will begin to operate in 1996.
There has been widespread support for the code due to the general recognition of the importance of an impartial, non-partisan and non-corrupt civil service. It is recognised that that is a priceless gift which is very important to our democracy. There was a feeling that, at a time of great managerial change, when the civil service was being fragmented, we needed to re-emphasise and endorse the underlying values that we had all accepted in the past.
I am not making a party political point here, but when a party has been in power for a long time—as the Conservative party has—it is necessary to state again that the civil service is not the prerogative or preserve of any one party. That, too, was part of the motivation for the code. I suppose it is also true that civil servants occasionally begin to feel that, if a party continues to win elections, it will always do so, which can affect the advice that civil servants give to Ministers.
The code has two main merits. First, it sets out clearly and in one place the responsibilities and duties of civil servants, and the responsibilities and duties of Ministers in relation to civil servants. That has not been done before. Secondly, it provides for the first time an independent appeals system for aggrieved civil servants, protecting them against misuse of their services by Ministers.
I cannot pretend that it was merely the merits of our arguments that won the day. We have all described the Scott inquiry as hovering over Parliament, Government and the civil service like a cloud or a sword of Damocles. I think that the Government felt the need for a response to be prepared beforehand, which was very sensible of them. They therefore changed their mind about the code. After spending about 18 months arguing against us, and sending the head of the civil service to argue against us, they suddenly said, "Well, actually we have changed our


mind and we accept your position." I do not criticise the Government for that; in fact, I congratulate them on such sensible action.
That emphasises the need for consensus in our views of the civil service. The principles that we have been discussing—the concept of an impartial, non-corrupt, non-partisan civil servant, for instance—should have the support of all parties in the House. The civil service is not the property of a single party, and it should not be made into a political football by Opposition parties either. It is very important to us. I firmly believe, and always believed while I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee, that there should be consensus for advances and reforms in the civil service. I tried to broker that. It broke down after 1992, but until then there was consensus, and it is important that such a consensus should again be built up and maintained. We set an example in the Sub-Committee which others have followed. I hope that they will continue to follow it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke of the possibility, which I think is now a probability, of the functions of the Sub-Committee being transferred to a new Select Committee. This is not the time to make jokes about why the new Deputy Prime Minister needs his own Select Committee, although I am sure that he does because he is such an important person. I hope that the new Committee will have all the functions of the old Sub-Committee and that none will suddenly fall by the wayside.
In particular, I hope that the Cabinet Office will still be under the purview of that Committee. From time to time, we should also be able to look at quangos in the same way as the Sub-Committee looked at them. Nobody else will do that if we do not, and I see it as within the purview of the new Committee.
Select Committees come in for a great deal of stick. I have read the brilliant, well written book by the political columnist of The Independent, Andrew Man. It is called "Ruling Britannia". I am not Mr. Marr's agent, but I advise hon. Members to read it. He says that Select Committees have not really proved to be a great success and that television and radio programmes are far more effective watchdogs of democracy.
I see his point and I accept that the Select Committee system has faults. They are only as good as their members, but they have one priceless advantage over television and radio: we can send for persons and papers. We can call the head of the civil service to explain why he is not in favour of having a code of practice, and his arguments begin to sound rather silly. The head of the civil service will not appear on "Panorama" or "Newsnight" and will certainly not be investigated over a long period. We have that advantage and we must press it home because it is very important for our parliamentary democracy. We can also make lengthy and detailed investigations.
The Nolan committee was set up because people were worried about standards in public life. That was damaging to our democracy and it is still potentially damaging. That is why it is important to get these matters right. Clearly, Monday's debate will be important. However, we must not go to the extreme of saying that no parliamentary weapon is any good at all. The Select Committee system is potentially a weapon of considerable value to Parliament and to our democracy.

Dr. Tony Wright: Having just voted for shorter speeches, I shall do my best to make one. It is not unusual for Governments to set up committees. Sometimes they do it because they want a committee to provide an answer that they already know, sometimes it is to kick an issue into touch and sometimes it is to avoid a crisis that is enmeshing them. Usually the reports from such committees gather dust because the crisis has gone and things have moved on. Nolan is different. There was a crisis and setting up the Nolan committee was certainly the response to it, but that committee is different because it has delivered and it will not go away. It has made an impact on the way in which we practise politics in Britain that will be there for ever. Out of one crisis and one set of circumstances, quite fundamental changes are taking place.
Nolan responded with urgency and in a way that has enabled the Government to act quickly. Because the committee was set up on a standing basis, its influence will go on being felt in all the areas that it examines. That is one of the reasons for some Conservative Members in their private moments telling us that they find it hard to forgive the Prime Minister for setting the committee up in the first place. It is not just a source of immediate difficulty: it will be a source of continuing difficulty for them.
There will certainly be continued displeasure by those isolated Conservative Members who brought the House into such disrepute that a system has to be put in place which will have the most fundamental consequences for the whole of our democracy. That is good, but some hon. Members, and especially some Conservative Members, will think that it is bad. From this small beginning something large is beginning to emerge.
Nolan acted impressively and did in six months what the House has been unable to do over many a year. When I gave evidence, I could not persuade the committee to set up a public appointments commission to put the appointments to quangos on the same basis as those to the civil service, but the committee came close to what I wanted in the emergence of a proposal for a public appointments commissioner who will add an independent element to the process. What an indictment of the House it is that we have had to wait for Nolan to make proposals that over the years the House could have made on all the fronts and issues with which the Nolan committee concerned itself.
In a statement about Members' interests which could apply across the board, Nolan says:
The overall picture is not one of an institution whose Members have been quick to recognise or respond to public concern.
That is a masterly understatement on the nature of an institution which has caused this crisis to arise and which has required outside intervention to put it right. The partisan way in which the House is even now responding to Nolan underscores the point.
For a long time, the Government simply wanted to brush aside all the concerns that hon. Members tried to raise about the issues with which Nolan was called upon to deal. The House and the Government refused to treat seriously Ministers going to boardrooms, patronage, quango appointments, the audit of public bodies or the


interests of Members. The Government's response was to say that those were not great concerns, but when the crisis mounted they began to make minimal adjustments.
Statements started being made and papers produced of a minimal sort, but then the crisis got worse, until finally Nolan had to be invented. The Government, however, still took the same approach to the Nolan committee. They tried to persuade the committee that on those crucial issues they were right and those of us who had been saying something else were wrong.
The Nolan report comprehensively rejected what the Government were arguing on the key issues of business appointments of Ministers, patronage, the need for an independent element in quango appointments and the need for external audit. To all those things, on which the Government had refused to move, saying that they were right and we were wrong, the Nolan committee said that it could not agree and made a set of recommendations far closer to what the critics had been saying than to what the Government had been defending.
The high point of that process was reached when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's predecessor gave his evidence. What an experience that was. The following morning, the Financial Times talked about it being "breathtaking in its complacency" and Peter Riddell said in The Times:
David Hunt has seriously misjudged the Nolan inquiry. Over nearly two hours yesterday, his approach was a mixture of the blustering, the defensive and the partisan. He did not even seem to understand why it was necessary to set up the inquiry in the first place.
That is bunkum and balderdash of a high order.
It is no wonder that the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has gone—presumably to the great boardroom in the sky.
Now the Government say—indeed, I heard the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying this all over the broadcast media yesterday—that they have accepted "all" the Nolan recommendations which apply to them; that was the theme. By this evening, however, the theme has changed ever so slightly. Now we are being told that the Government have accepted virtually all the Nolan recommendations which applied to them or, in one mode, all the major recommendations which applied to them.
I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it should be put on record that in a whole lot of particulars, many of them important, the Government have chosen not to accept the Nolan recommendations. I will run through them quickly.
The Nolan committee wanted to make the Prime Minister the judge of ministerial conduct. Indeed, the only underlined sentence in the Nolan report is on that very point. Nolan says that it is "axiomatic" that the Prime Minister is the judge of whether a Minister has behaved properly. What have the Government done? They say in their response that it goes "too far" to make the Prime Minister the judge of that, taking away the one underlined statement to be found in the whole Nolan report about the pinnacle of accountability in the system.
Is that not revealing? It means that, so long as a Minister can get away with something politically in the House—and of course Ministers do so with majorities, as we have seen just recently—contrary to the Nolan

recommendation, there is no role for the Prime Minister in having to come to a view on whether the conduct is honourable and consistent with being a Minister.
What about the three-month automatic waiting period for Ministers before they can take up business appointments? The Government response is to say that it "serves no useful purpose". Useful to whom? Useful to the public interest or useful to Ministers? Nolan said that there should be an appeal mechanism from Ministers to the Prime Minister and that, for the same reason as before, the Prime Minister should have a decisive role in relation to Ministers' ability to take up appointments and the conditions attaching to them. In their response, the Government say that there is "no constitutional need" for such a mechanism.
The Nolan report says that Ministers should keep a register of hospitality and that the register should be made available to the public. The Government response is to say that "no useful purpose" would be served by keeping such a register. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster nods. I shall be happy to give him the references if he wishes.
The Nolan report says that successful appeals under the civil service code should be reported to Parliament. The Government say that they should not and that we need to protect confidentiality. Nolan says that there should be regular surveys of Departments and agencies to ensure that they understand what ethical standards are and that those standards are being applied. The Government say that they should not be such surveys and that we should have "no prescription" on that matter.
Nolan says that records of invitations and hospitality offers should be kept by all Departments and agencies. The Government say that there will be no central prescribing in such matters.
Nolan says that reappointments to quangos should not be automatic. Indeed, that is so important that Nolan comments expressly and directly on the Government's own guidance for the health service. Commenting on the Government's national health service document, Nolan said:
Re-appointments should not be automatic. The performance of the post-holder should be reviewed. A balance should be struck between maintaining continuity on boards and recruiting new members to inject fresh ideas.
The Government have said that reappointments will be automatic. There will not be an independent element at the reappointment stage. When one considers that some of the worst abuses of patronage involve people whose reappointments are now being made, one sees how important that is.
I cannot resist quoting briefly from Simon Jenkins. Andrew Marr has already been recommended, but the Government will dislike it even more if I recommend Simon Jenkins. His splendid book, "The Nationalisation of Britain," is his verdict on the Conservatives' centralist years. Writing about Nolan in The Times, he says:
As for the 15,000 health authority posts that had to be filled in 1991, it was the most undignified case of catch-as-catch-can in the history of public patronage. On seeing his list, one health administrator paraphrased Wellington and hoped they would 'terrify the consultants as much as they terrify me."'
They are the people who are now being reappointed. Nolan said that they should not be reappointed automatically; contrary to Nolan, however, the Government have said that they will be.
Nolan says that the Audit Commission should have the power to publish public interest reports on national health service bodies. The Government say that they are considering that. The Government say that because advisory quangos, nationalised industries, public corporations and tribunals are not covered "substantively" in the Nolan report, they will not be within the Public Appointments Commissioner's formal remit. Yet we know that the subject of advisory quangos is extraordinarily important. There are more than 800 of them and they are concerned with the safety of medicine, what goes into food, whether things are regulated for the environment, and so on.
I shall not quote from it now, but there is a recent splendid report from Democratic Audit/Channel 4/Human Rights Centre, university of Essex entitled "Behind Closed Doors: Advisory Quangos in the Corridors of Power". It shows that there are important questions to be asked about the connections between those who sit on some of the important advisory quangos and the industries that they are regulating. The need for an independent element is crucial. The Government have taken the view, although they need not have done so, that advisory quangos will not be covered by the Public Appointments Commissioner.
Nolan says:
The Public Appointments Unit should be taken out of the Cabinet Office and placed under the control of the Public Appointments Commissioner.
The Government insist that that will not cover the PAU's role in advising the Prime Minister on a whole range of strategic appointments. However, we know from paragraphs 49 to 51 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that in a whole range of appointments the Prime Minister's is the key role. Yet the PAU and the Public Appointments Commissioner are not to have a role in that respect.
We are told—this was raised by the hon. Member for Aldridge, Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—that openness codes were needed for bodies which fell outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Government say yes, but because they are outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction there is no right of appeal against the denial of openness. That is different from the situation in relation to bodies which fall within the jurisdiction. The sensible thing would have been to extend the jurisdiction.
One of the obiter dicta of Nolan was that the ombudsman's jurisdiction should be extended. With great respect to Nolan, he got it wrong, but I know what he tried to say—that the ombudsman's jurisdiction should be devised in such a way that everything falls within it unless bodies are specifically excluded. The report actually put it the other way around, but that is what Nolan meant. That is what the Government are being asked to do, but no action has resulted.
We had a welcome clarification today on the question of procedure for Ministers and the withholding of information in the public interest. It was extraordinary that the Government's initial response included a provision to allow Ministers to withhold information on a blanket public information ground. That flies in the face of what the Government have been trying to do in identifying the

criteria which would determine what the public interest was. I am glad that the Government have changed their mind about that.
Contrary to what the Chancellor of the Duchy would have us believe, the Government have not accepted all Nolan's recommendations. Indeed, on that quick count, 14 recommendations have not been accepted.
Finally, I want to make a general point. The Nolan committee rejected a statutory approach. It thought about it briefly, but said that we should continue doing things in a rather informal, British "good chaps" sort of way. I did not think that its rejection of a different approach was entirely convincing. There will be government by codes—probably there will be more codes than there are in the telephone directory. There will be codes for Ministers, civil servants, members of quangos and Members of Parliament—one has only to name it and there will be a code for it.
In fact, had a statutory approach been adopted many years ago, many of the problems could have been avoided. For example, back in 1976 the House was advised by the Salmon Commission that it should put the case of attempting to bribe Members of Parliament on a statutory footing. The House ignored that recommendation.
Some of the best things that Nolan said are about whistleblowing and its importance in ventilating concerns. I do not want to advertise my Whistleblower Protection Bill, but it contains a model of how codes must be supplemented by a framework and backstop of legislative protection. That is the model that we need, but instead we have a system that we make up as we go along. It is an informal system, but I want it to be on a more statutory basis.
Disraeli once said famously that this country is governed not by logic but by Parliament. Nolan is a departure from the usual way in which things are done. It is the beginning of a constitutional reform mechanism. I should like it to be converted into a permanent, constitutional commission. If we do that, the series of crises which began this process may result in our ending up with a modern constitution.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: I agree with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that it is nice and, indeed, quite a relief to be out of the shadows. It is a great privilege to be speaking for the first time from the Dispatch Box, on such an important subject and in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who made a distinguished speech. On the Government Bench is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), whom I knew slightly in different—I would not say better—times. I look forward to many courteous exchanges with both Ministers.
This debate, like the current controversy about the disclosure of Members of Parliament's outside earnings, has revealed that the Government are on the horns of a dilemma. The Government, correctly in my view, responded to public disquiet about sleaze by setting up the Nolan committee. In doing so, they raised immense public expectations that tough action would be taken. However, having tried to implement Nolan in full—I think that that is what he intended before the summer—


the Prime Minister has run up against the all-powerful right-wing road block which seems to call all the shots in the Tory party these days. For them, Nolan is in crucial respects a crackdown too far. As a result, Ministers are facing the dilemma of either backing away from Nolan on the crucial points to appease the party, in which case they will infuriate the public, as we have already seen, or implementing Nolan in full, in which case they will have much more trouble on their Back Benches.
Surprise, surprise, our stalwart Prime Minister has chosen to swim with the tide of internal party opinion rather than stand up convincingly for the public interest. Caving in seems to have become a compulsive habit of his, whether on Europe, education vouchers, welfare cuts, asylum seekers or divorce reform. Instead of wanting to do what is right, he simply does whatever the right want him to do.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that on Nolan, whether in relation to jobs for the boys for ex-Ministers, as it is regarded by members of the public, or Members' disclosure of their outside earnings, the public are beginning to ask what on earth the Tories have to hide. Why will they not come clean? Why cannot ex-Ministers face the same requirements concerning their business appointments as civil servants?
Let us not forget that it was the Prime Minister who set up the Nolan inquiry. I am sure that Conservative Members will reflect on the fact that we would not be here tonight—indeed, we would not be here next Monday night—if it were not for him. Let us also not forget why the Prime Minister took the action that he did. His Government seemed to be mired in sleaze. The reputation of public life looked set for ever to be tarnished by one revelation after another about this Minister or that wrongdoing. So the Prime Minister acted. He acted properly and well, and now I believe that Parliament, too, must act.
On matters affecting standards in public life, which we are debating tonight, our decisions must do three things. First, they must place the greatest onus of responsibility on elected public figures to act, and to be seen to be acting at all times, with total propriety and openness. It is nonsense that civil servants who advise should be placed under greater constraint and obligation than Ministers who decide, yet that is being proposed in the business appointment rules.
Secondly, the decisions taken must be completely clear and unambiguous: no "musts" becoming "mays", no woolly words, no clever drafting, no room for manoeuvre later and no get-out clauses. Above all, there must be no room for confusion in what is being proposed and what is being agreed. If there is, we will not be able to satisfy our third and most crucial duty, which is to ensure that what is done in the public's name and paid for out of the public purse is genuinely in the public's interest, not in the party's interest. That is especially important in relation to the growing army of special political advisers who are setting up shop in Whitehall.
I refer now to the business appointment rules. I must say straight away that I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). I do so for very strong personal and constituency reasons, for it was the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North who took on and single-handedly fought off Chinese dumping of cheap

magnesium products in Europe, and thereby secured the important magnesium works in Hartlepool—no mean feat and achievement. I pay tribute to him quite sincerely for that because when others, including his officials, were not interested, he was.
On the wider issue, there is no doubt about Nolan's intentions on the system for business appointments that should apply to Ministers. The report says:
The civil service system is tried and tested … it provides a strong reassurance to the public.
It should be applied to Ministers.
It is true that Nolan talks about applying the system "with some slight modifications", but members of the committee were clear about what that means—they said so in paragraph 36. Modification, they meant, was in respect of the role of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from the advisory committee on business appointments, not the general application of the system to Ministers.
Nolan says on the narrower issue of the Prime Minister's role:
It might seem invidious…for Ministers who have just been dismissed by the Prime Minister to have to submit their future employment plans to the same Prime Minister for consideration.
Given the circumstances in which many of the Prime Minister's right hon. Friends have had to be felled by the prime ministerial axe, one can understand why they might not want to have quite so much to do with each other in future.
Indeed, one might also say that in certain cases—the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) comes to mind—submitting every subsequent job and each additional business appointment to the Prime Minister for his consideration would take a wholly disproportionate amount of the Prime Minister's time.
We can put aside the Government's view on that narrow issue of appeal, although I take very strongly the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who spoke with some force on the matter. The more important issue is whether the system as a whole in its basic operation for Ministers should be voluntary or mandatory, by which—incidentally—I do not mean statutory. I fully accept both Nolan's view and the Government's conclusion on that.
In their original response, the Government seemed to accept the obligatory basis of the system in its application to Ministers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, they now seem to be saying that former Ministers may—rather than must—seek the advisory committee's view on their business appointments. That is a very important and fundamental shift by the Government away from what Nolan was proposing.
Let us be clear about that. It was not a sort of take-it-or-leave-it service that Nolan had in mind for Ministers. It was a proper, open and transparent regulatory instrument to ensure that all Ministers and private businesses would not be involved in playing footsie under the table, swapping favours or scratching each other's backs when their new recruit was in a Government office.
The only reason why the Minister has backtracked on this issue must be that some of his colleagues simply do not want to have to face the system. We must ask again: what have they got to hide? The scope for evasion under


the Government's modified proposals is great in our view, and the system simply will not command public confidence unless the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes it absolutely clear tonight that elected politicians are subject to the same discipline as unelected officials. I hope that he will promise to bring forward revised guidelines accordingly, or at least clarify what the Government have in mind, to the complete satisfaction of the Opposition and the general public.
I now turn to the civil service and the civil service code. The code owes its existence to the strenuous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North, who chairs the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee. I pay tribute to his work and to that of the Committee. We strongly support the introduction of a code that sets out the principles and the framework within which civil servants undertake their duties. However, we believe that more specific guidelines are needed in addition to the general principles set out in the code if the code is to have real force and real bite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, the code must also be buttressed by legislation.
I draw the Minister's attention to one aspect of the code. On page 59 of the report, Nolan makes a recommendation—it could be called the whistleblower's clause—which states:
We recommend that the draft civil service code should be revised to cover circumstances in which a civil servant, while not personally involved, is aware of wrongdoing or maladministration taking place".
The Nolan committee also proposes deleting the words "within their control" from a sentence in paragraph 7 of the draft code, which reads:
civil servants should endeavour to ensure the proper, effective and efficient use of public money within their control".
In other words, if civil servants know of examples of wrongdoing or maladministration outside their immediate purview or control, they should be able to blow the whistle. I am interested to know how the Government view that recommendation, as I believe that it has very important implications for the operation of the protections in the code.
Let us put into perspective why such a code is needed. In comparison with many countries, our system of government is honest, open and untainted by corruption. I do not believe that anyone gains by pretending otherwise. I believe that our high standards owe a huge amount to the integrity and the devotion of the civil service. However, two serious problems have arisen concerning the civil service that must be borne in mind when considering the Nolan proposals and the draft code.
The first is that, as a result of the Government's desire to marry the public service culture with that of the marketplace in the operation of government, the ethos and the standards of the former have suffered at the hands of the latter. That is not to say that the operations of the civil service are immutable for all time—I do not think that they are—or that public and private cannot combine; I think that they can and they should. However, the system must be policed and regulated very carefully in order to ensure that the standards of the public service are not undermined by some of the sharper practices of the private sector.
The second problem arises from the fact that the Government have been in power for 16 years. That is too long for most people, and it is certainly too long for Labour Members. When an Administration has been in office for that length of time—I shall express my point carefully—there is a temptation for Ministers and civil servants to cut corners, to take certain procedures for granted and to slide into relationships with outside interests about which they would be more wary in other circumstances. That is bound to occur by virtue of the longevity of the Government's term in office.
Therefore, we must be very vigilant about using civil servants to perform party political tasks, such as writing conference speeches, briefing Government Back Benchers on party points and so on. I believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should offer the House some reassurance on those points and outline what action the Government intend to take to curb any misuse or abuse of civil servants' time and talents for party political purposes.
The right hon. Gentleman should also understand that senior civil servants have become understandably worried about their job security and the political pressures on them in the light of recent events. I shall not go into the merits or demerits of Derek Lewis's running of the Prison Service, but the manner of his sacking raises some important issues for the civil service and for its terms and conditions of employment which Nolan does not cover in the proposed code of practice.
As we know, Mr. Lewis's appointment was summarily terminated in a letter from Mr. Richard Wilson, permanent secretary at the Home Office on 16 October. We all understood why he was sacked, but the contractual basis of his sacking was never made clear and it has not been made clear since.
I put it to the Minister that, as a result of that action, any official at that level in the civil service now must consider him or herself at risk of similar treatment. Does the Minister agree that such a threat—and it is a threat as it has happened once and it could happen again—exerts an insidious political pressure on senior officials to toe the line, or, in the case of Mr. Lewis, to carry the can or be fired?
If Mr. Lewis was not wrongfully dismissed—no doubt the Government will maintain that in response to the case that he is bringing—and he was not fired on the basis of his contract, the only way he could have been removed was by use of the royal prerogative.
The Government have stated in the past that the Crown's power to dismiss at will will not be used in practice and that they will abide by ordinary employment legislation. As I have raised the issue with him tonight, it behoves the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position and give the House and the entire civil service an assurance that in future the Government will not use the royal prerogative to get rid of civil servants they do not like and whose faces do not fit.
I shall now refer to special advisers. There is a further source of real concern about developments inside Whitehall which Nolan touches on but does not delve deeply into—the Government's use of paid, political so-called special advisers. Such appointments have been made by Labour as well as Conservative Administrations in the past. I willingly accept that, in appropriate cases,


they have a role to play, but the present Government are recruiting a veritable army of such people at enormous public cost, which is estimated at £1.5 million a year.
In reply to a parliamentary question, the Prime Minister said that £9 million had been spent on such people since 1988. We are entitled to ask what all that money is being spent on, how those people fit into the civil service structure and how they can be properly covered by civil service procedures and the civil service code.
Almost one third of the current flock of advisers have been taken on directly from Conservative central office. Are they helping Ministers in pursuit of better government, which would certainly justify the public expenditure involved, or are they merely assisting politicians in pursuit of their party careers, in which case the payment of their salaries should revert to Conservative central office?
Nolan rightly brought special advisers within the scope of the business appointments system, and we welcome that, but further transparency is needed in their employment and use. They are causing increasing concern and alarm among many in Whitehall. They have extensive access to confidential information and knowledge of future policy developments. Their value to business is therefore immense, as has been amply demonstrated by the traffic of ex-special advisers into well-paid lobbying and consultancy jobs.
Until recently, the Deputy Prime Minister's special adviser, Dr. Alan Kemp, was so useful to the private sector that he only worked for the right hon. Gentleman part-time, so that a business named Capita could employ Dr. Kemp the rest of his time. The company was simultaneously employing Dr. Kemp and tendering for lucrative Government contracts. That clear conflict of interests continued four years before it was stopped when the Cabinet Office rightly insisted this summer on ending that arrangement and forcing Dr. Kemp to choose between his public and business interests.

Mr. Spearing: Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of who has responsibility for the appointment of such persons—particularly the individual that he just mentioned—and for the terms of service that would allow split employment of that kind?

Mr. Mandelson: Such appointments are made on the personal fiat of the individual Ministers concerned, which raises an important issue in the case of another individual. If the Duchy has any doubt about the need for closer examination of the role of special advisers and of how they operate within Whitehall, the right hon. Gentleman should consider that very special of special advisers, Mr. David Hart at the Ministry of Defence—the so-called triumphant ideologue at the heart of Government, as he has been dubbed. That rings a bell, and that is among the nicer things said about Mr. Hart by the Tory-supporting press.
Mr. Hart has been at the Ministry of Defence for two years. He is apparently unpaid, yet he inhabits an office near the Secretary of State. Mr. Hart deals with a range of policy issues but his status is so ambiguous and arouses such suspicion that apparently he never attends meetings at which civil servants are present—no doubt so that they cannot question any advice that he gives. That itself raises a number of suspicions and sounds a number of alarm bells—that a special adviser cannot even sit down in the

same room as civil servants because of the nature of his appointment and because of the character of the man. Mr. Hart is referred to as "independent", which is more than can be said for the Secretary of State, who apparently jumps every time Mr. Hart opens his mouth.

Mr. Radice: Did he write the Defence Secretary's conference speech?

Mr. Mandelson: Mr. Hart is in such a privileged position that his security pass takes him to the heart of the Ministry of Defence and gives him access—ordered specifically and personally by the Secretary of State—to the Ministry's classified information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North, not for the first time, is absolutely correct. Mr. Hart was involved in the preparation of the Secretary of State's disastrous speech at the Tory party conference, which alone should be ground enough for Mr. Hart's dismissal.
Nolan should take a keen interest in such invisible but clearly highly influential individuals at the heart of the Government, if only because that particular individual is viewed within Whitehall as such a dangerous character that—I have this on good authority—even the Prime Minister has tried to have Mr. Hart removed from his job. Of course, the Prime Minister failed.
Real civil servants, unlike the shadowy David Hart, are rightly respected for their loyalty and dedication to good government. They will no doubt serve the next Government with the same commitment and diligence that they do the present one. When we talk of the problems of maintaining standards of conduct in public life, we ought to understand that those problems would be much larger without the standards of integrity, independence and political neutrality that are the hallmarks of the British civil service.
The Nolan committee's proposals in relation to Ministers and civil servants, and, as far as they go, to special advisers, will strengthen our system of government. They should be agreed and implemented in full by the Government. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the views expressed tonight by hon. Members on both sides, including those of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I hope that he will illuminate for us how the Government intend to implement Nolan in full, to the complete satisfaction of the British public.

Mr. Freeman: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The House will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his maiden speech in his new position. We welcome him to it and look forward to vigorous debates with him. I certainly did not agree with 98 per cent. of what he said—

Mr. King: Ninety-nine per cent.

Mr. Freeman: I stand corrected.
One of the main thrusts of his speech was the idea that the Prime Minister had not displayed courage or conviction as regards Nolan. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Prime Minister who condemned the actions of some hon. Members, who set up the Nolan committee, and who then accepted its recommendations. [Interruption.] I shall deal in a moment with the point


made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). Therefore, there can be no criticism of the Prime Minister's actions: he has led from the front. He leads a united Cabinet, which has agreed in full the response to Nolan's recommendations for Government.
Both the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool raised an important and serious point, which I shall attempt to deal with briefly but clearly. They said that the guidelines should compel former Ministers to seek the advice of the committee, and presumably—although the hon. Gentleman did not say this—to follow the guidance that it offers. That at any rate was the logic of his argument about those separate but related points.
Nolan recommended an advisory system. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) implied that that system should march in step with the one for the civil service. I shall argue that it does—for instance, when it comes to the three-month waiting period. This is an advisory committee, which will report back to the Minister who seeks the advice. The hon. Member for Hartlepool did not suggest any sanction that could be imposed. Had he suggested one, I would have paid closer attention to rewording the document. There is no sanction, apart from the opprobrium of the House, the media and the public, if a Minister does not consult the committee or ignores its advice. That is a powerful sanction; I would argue that it is all that is required to be effective.
I gave a pledge, matched by one from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy, that members of this Administration would consult the committee as and when appropriate. I hope that that statement will be taken at face value. I think that this will provide an effective system, just like the one for the civil service.

Mr. Mandelson: rose—

Mr. Freeman: When the hon. Gentleman participates in future debates, perhaps he will keep a careful eye on the clock and divide the remaining time in two. Tonight he did not quite manage the mathematics, so I hope that he will allow me to answer the debate properly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned page 59 of the Nolan report—whistleblowing in the civil service. I am sure that he has read our response carefully, but perhaps I can repeat, for his benefit, that the Government have accepted the relevant recommendation and have put the relevant mechanism in place. The civil servant will first consult his permanent secretary. If he is not satisfied with that reply, he will then be able to consult the civil service commissioners. That is an important new step. I welcome it and I know that the House will welcome it.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool referred—in the House, so protected by privilege—in an unsavoury and unsatisfactory way, to Dr. Kemp and Mr. David Hart. As I have worked with both of them, I shall respond. Let me first say a word about special advisers.
The system was set up by a Labour Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. Gentleman spoke with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition on the matter. The procedure is simple. It is not all Ministers but Cabinet Ministers who

appoint special advisers. They are civil servants covered by all the obligations imposed on a civil servant. For example, a special adviser is not allowed to campaign.

Mr. Mandelson: What about Mr. Hart?

Mr. Freeman: I shall come to Mr. Hart in a second. Special advisers cannot be overtly political. They cannot write in a journal. They cannot be prospective parliamentary candidates. Advisers employed on new contracts are now subject to the advisory committee on business appointments.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool will reflect on what he said about Dr. Kemp. I will read the record. I hope that he will take an opportunity to withdraw the hint of impropriety that he suggested in the activities of Dr. Kemp. That was not an honourable way to proceed, because the facts are otherwise. Dr. Kemp has behaved perfectly properly. He is one of the special advisers to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I also work closely with him. Dr. Kemp was appointed as a full-time special adviser to my right hon. Friend when he took up his responsibilities in early July. There are certainly no justifications for suggesting impropriety in his previous activities as a part-time adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry. Proper procedures were in place to make sure that that did not happen.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool was right to say that Mr. David Hart is unpaid. Therefore, Mr. Hart is not a special adviser but a political adviser—a personal appointment by the previous Secretary of State for Defence, renewed by the current Secretary of State. Mr. Hart works with civil servants. I was Minister of State for Defence Procurement for one year, during which time, I sought Mr. Hart's advice about procurement matters on several occasions. He works with the civil service, frequently attends meetings at which civil servants are present and provides valuable advice on saving money out of the defence budget.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: No, I will not give way. I am answering the debate.

Mr. Mandelson: Why did the Prime Minister try to get rid of Mr. Hart?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tried to get rid of Mr. Hart. There is not a shred of veracity in that suggestion. It is absolutely not true.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on one point. I do not know why he received the answer to his written parliamentary question at 5 o'clock. I will look into the matter. I scrupulously try to make sure that hon. Members receive the correct information at 3.30 pm. Some of our systems for getting information to large numbers of hon. Members leave something to be desired, but it may have been our fault.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) dealt in a robust and admirable fashion with the implied criticisms of my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). I wish to put it on record that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, a former Cabinet Minister, waited three months.
I remind the House of the tests. The tests were whether there was an act of favouritism, whether arty competitive knowledge was taken by the former Minister to the new job and whether there was any other specific, justifiable concern. The advisory committee on business appointments was not asked for informal advice because the system is not yet formally in place. However, Lord Carlisle, who chairs the committee, offered his judgment that the actions of my right hon. Friends were entirely consistent with what the committee would have advised.
The word "lucrative" is often used in relation to jobs. It is a pejorative term which is not worthy of proper, rational discussion about the system. [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland laughs. I am bound to say that the Labour party should exercise responsible leadership on the matter, as my right hon. Friend suggested. Perhaps we have to educate the public. We want former Ministers, Labour or Conservative, to return to the private sector for the good of the economy, and to be paid fairly and properly.

Mr. Derek Foster: What the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fail to understand is that the general public strongly favour the use of the word "lucrative"—£100,000 and £200,000 are regarded as substantial sums. That is particularly true when those sums are spoken of by a Government who are against the statutory minimum wage and who argue forcibly about low-paid workers being paid too much and pricing themselves out of a job.

Mr. Freeman: I can do no more than repeat the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, who said that all of us must understand the real world, and the salaries that are commanded and have to be paid in the private sector. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has experience of that. If a job is to be done properly in the private sector, it should be fairly and properly rewarded. Talk of taking lucrative positions does not help the public debate.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland raised a number of issues, including the three-month period. My expectation and presumption is that that period will normally apply. The Nolan committee has not described the subject in detail, but some civil servants have been allowed to take positions within three months—for example, vice-chancellorships of universities. There may be parallel circumstances that should apply to former Ministers. It would be wrong to omit from the guidelines and the operation of the advisory committee the ability to be flexible in some circumstances. However, the presumption is that the period will normally be one of three months. As the House will know, former Ministers receive redundancy payment that lasts for three months, so there is some symmetry and logic in the arrangement.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him, as I should, as a matter of courtesy, respond to the points raised. If there is time, I shall certainly give way to him.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for raising the subject of the bribery of Members of Parliament, and I shall refer his point to the Home Secretary, whose Department has responsibility for

such matters. I am not aware that the issue presents an immediate problem to the implementation of the Nolan committee's proposals, but I take his point seriously.
There seems to be some confusion over the Prime Minister's responsibility. Obviously, Ministers must command the confidence of the House, and of the Prime Minister. If a Minister does not command the confidence of the House, he cannot sustain himself in the role of Minister. Such confidence must be sustained in the longer term—in politics I would define that as a matter of days, perhaps weeks. A Minister must command the confidence of the House—it may not agree with him, but it has long been the tradition that, in terms of his behaviour, a Minister must command the confidence of the House. Who sacks him? It is the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister can sack a Minister for other reasons. The Minister might still command the confidence of the House, but not that of the Prime Minister; the Minister may be incompetent or unable to do the job properly, or his or her face may not fit. I see no problem—one of the clear reasons that we gave for not making the Prime Minister the sole arbiter and judge was to reinforce the need for a Minister to be accountable to Parliament, but that in no way reduces the Prime Minister's power to move Ministers when they no longer command his confidence or are not doing the job properly.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the issue of accountability of Ministers and agencies. There seems to be much confusion about the underlying issues that needed to be considered or even reconsidered in relation to the responsibilities of Ministers and the chief executives of agencies.
The key point is that agencies are part of the civil service; they are part of a Minister's Department. The Minister is fully accountable to Parliament for the work of the entire Department, including any agencies. A Select Committee—I think the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—has recently suggested direct accountability to Select Committees by chief executives of agencies. That takes us down a difficult path.
At the moment, the Minister is fully responsible, including to the Select Committee, for the work of his Department. He does not have to accept the blame for every last action within his Department. That would be absurd. We would not have modern British Government under Labour or Conservative Administrations if that were the case. However, he is accountable.
The purpose of the framework document in creating an agency was simply to define what responsibilities could be delegated to the chief executive of the agency. I do not claim that we have it right in the case of all 109 agencies. I want to consider the experience that has accumulated during the past few years to see where improvements can be made. We do not claim that everything is perfect.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) talked about the civil service code, and I am grateful for his bipartisan approach. First, prodded by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, I confirm that we want a Select Committee to cover the Office of Public Service, and it may be that related matters can be added to that definition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue in his helpful role to the House—I do not mean that in a partisan way—if a new Select Committee is set up. I hope that that Select Committee will have a sufficient remit to consider all the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
My test of impartiality for a civil servant—it does not matter whether it is a permanent secretary or the youngest recruit—is whether he has the enthusiasm to work for an Administration run by different political parties. It is an important question. If I judge that the answer is no, that civil servant has crossed that line of impartiality, of objectivity, of service to the Crown but not to a political party. That is an important test. I believe strongly in an impartial civil service. It is not right—this is one reason for the civil service code commended by the right hon. Gentleman—ever to put a civil servant in a position where he is involved with, or supporting, a party political, narrow partisan activity, function or whatever. It is always a matter of balance and judgment, because hard-and-fast rules cannot be written, but I hope that I have given the thrust of my views.
I conclude by referring to the contribution of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, which in turn was repeated by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. I had not realised, and I apologise, that he is a graduate of that distinguished academic institution, Desborough primary school and, what is more, Kettering grammar school. I am the Member for Kettering. My only regret is that Shirley Williams abolished Kettering grammar school—I hope much to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood.
Surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman criticised what he saw this afternoon as a partisan approach to the Nolan committee and then proceeded to make what I thought was largely a partisan speech. Nevertheless, he raised a number of important issues. I want to characterise the Government's response to that part of Nolan dealing with the role of Ministers—Government Nolan, as it is known—as a whole-hearted acceptance.
Frankly, it is not fair—the hon. Gentleman was straining at gnats—for the him to characterise our acceptance as rather grudging. It is not grudging at all. Where there is good reason to differ from Lord Nolan's committee, we have spelt it out. Lord Nolan is not God. Neither is my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater a heavenly body—at least not yet. To assume somehow that everything that Lord Nolan and his committee said, in a rapidly produced report, must be taken literally, is foolish.
I shall read the record and, because of my high regard for the two academic institutions to which the hon. Gentleman went, I shall write to him with a full and proper response. However, I hope that the House is convinced that we have responded to Nolan promptly, whole-heartedly, with enthusiasm and, above all, correctly.

Mr. Bowen Wells(Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Measles and Rubella Immunisation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Llew Smith: Towards the end of last year, more than 7 million children were vaccinated against measles and rubella. The official reason given by the Government—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Smith: As I was saying, the reason given by the Government was that we were facing a measles epidemic. The Department of Health predicted that
between 100,000 and 200,000 cases would occur. Thousands of children would have to be admitted to hospital with measles complications, such as pneumonia … around 50 children would die.
That prediction would obviously frighten the toughest of families, but what is important is whether it reflected reality.
Having spoken to many people—including many authorities on the subject—and read many research papers, I believe that there was no evidence to support the claim of an epidemic and its tragic consequences. If the Minister considers that I am wrong, will he please inform me where the documents for parents and doctors explain how those conclusions were reached? I have read the document for parents, and it gives no such information.
Where in the research papers produced by doctors from the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, and in the paper by H. R. Hobad and others—listed by the Chief Medical Officer as being central to the Department of Health's policy—is it explained how those conclusions were reached? Will the Minister provide me with the calculations predicting such an epidemic in H. R. Hobad's paper? I want to be given the calculations, not the reading list that one doctor received when he requested the same information.
I have repeated that demand because, if the Minister's recent reply is correct, the method of calculation suggests that there has been an epidemic just about every year for the past decade, which is clearly arrant nonsense. I am not the only person to conclude that the Department of Health was not telling the truth in predicting such an epidemic. Eminent people such as Dr. Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, stated:
If government doctors are allowed to get away with basing the mass campaign on a lie, it will be all the easier for them to be untruthful the next time that suits their purpose. Like any other doctor, they must recognise that it is no longer acceptable to lie to patients.
That is even more worrying when we consider that, in one of her many press releases, the former Secretary of State for Health stated that the public
should be able to expect high standards of disclosure
with a health service that had "public confidence" and where the public were "well informed." We now know that that was a publicity stunt, because those aspirations were certainly not met in last year's measles vaccination campaign.
What about possible side effects after the injection? The Department of Health and Health Promotion Wales stated in the literature that they sent to parents:
Side effects are uncommon. They are usually very mild and disappear quickly.
While the Department of Health carried out a scare campaign about the extent of the likely epidemic and the dangers of vaccination, it lulled parents into a false sense of security by giving them inadequate information. Professor Richard Moxon of Oxford university said:
The concerns expressed by these parents are very plausible. There is a horrendous gap in the country's research.
I should like to mention a family in my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Gregory, whose child was vaccinated against measles and rubella. After a diagnosis of the child, their doctor recorded in her medical record that her ill health was the result of the vaccination. What is more, research that was conducted by the US Centres of Disease Control and Prevention identified 34 major side effects to MMR and DPT jabs.
In March 1995, the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre published a paper in The Lancet; the Government were aware of the results in that paper in mid-1994, six months before the vaccination campaign. The paper reported the results of research in which the side effects of immunisation were actively looked for rather than relying on the previous passive system of reporting by doctors. By linking hospital admission records, the authors showed that the incidence of various side effects was higher and more serious than had been previously thought. Why did not the Government tell parents the truth and not put out the kind of nonsense that they obviously did put out?
There is another reason for concern, because people such as Dr. Nicholson highlighted the fact that the measles-rubella vaccination campaign was an experiment. He stated:
In 1991, the Department of Health issued guidelines requiring all experiments in NHS patients to be reviewed in advance by local research ethics committees. No such committee approved this experiment.
The fact that it was an experiment was made clear in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal, in an article written by the director of the immunisation division of the CDSC. She wrote:
The campaign approach for delivering vaccines has not been tried before in an industrialised country…the comprehensive surveillance system in place…will show the consequences of the campaign to be associated accurately.
Will the Minister explain why that experiment did not go before any of the ethics committees?
The mathematical model which it is claimed predicted the measles epidemic depends entirely on the rate of spread of measles among 10 to 14-year-olds being at least twice as high as the spread among five to nine-year-old children. Will the Minister please detail what empirical scientific evidence exists to support that assumption?
I shall now deal with compensation for the victims of vaccine damage. As Rosemary Fox of the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children reminds us:
In 1979 a Royal Commission recommended that the Government should be strictly liable for vaccine damage—not only because this was morally right, when damage resulted from a scheme promoted by the Government, but also because it would show that the

Government had confidence in vaccination. Sadly, despite our long campaign to get the Government to compensate the injured, it has so far refused to do so.
That is confirmed in an answer by the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, now the Secretary of State for Wales, to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The Minister stated:
The payment is not compensation, but is designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage and their families."—[Official Report, 27 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 643.]
In order to qualify, the individual must have suffered severe mental or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more in cases where it could be sown that on the balance of probability, the damage resulted from any vaccination.
We must remember that while it may not be too difficult to prove who is at fault in a road crash and to obtain compensation, it is extremely difficult to the payment for experiencing horrific physical or mental injuries is a mere £30,000. Will the Minister consider amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to ensure far more generous compensation, not payment, for those whose lives have been destroyed, and will he ensure that the period for which claims can be made is extended? Will he also consider introducing a Freedom of Information Act, as they have in United States of America, to make information about licensing and side effects of pharmaceutical products publicly available?
I want to comment on the awarding of the contract to supply the vaccines. Will the Minister explain why the contract to supply approximately 8 million doses of vaccine, the cost of which must have been in excess of £100,000, was not advertised and put out to tender, as required by law, through the Official Journal of the European Communities?
Does the Minister accept that an excuse of "extreme urgency" does not stand up to serious analysis? If he denies that, will he inform me when the Department of Health decided to run a massive campaign of measles and rubella vaccination? Was there a period of five months before the vaccination campaign? If so, that is not a case of extreme urgency. Does he accept that it still does not qualify as "extreme urgency" by the laws of the European Union, to which we are subject, as those are concerned with emergencies caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes?
Will the Minister explain how the NHS Supplies Authority managed to equate "events unforeseeable" with the fact that the vaccine was needed precisely because the Department of Health claimed to have foreseen an epidemic? The Department cannot have it both ways—saying that the events were unforeseen and also that it had foreseen the events.
Will the Minister inform me whether the companies offered the contract already had supplies of measles and rubella vaccine that were left over from 1992, and for which there was no demand? Even allowing for that, does he accept that more supplies were still necessary and that it was surprising that tenders were not sought from other companies in other parts of the world supplying the vaccine?
Will the Minister inform me of the number of instances when financial penalties were applied to manufacturers of the measles and rubella vaccine used in the vaccination


campaign in November 1994, because of an identified fault in the supply of the vaccines or instructions as to their preparation? Will he confirm that one of his former colleagues, Baroness Hooper, an ex-Minister in the Department of Health, became a non-executive director of one of the two companies—Smith-Kline Beecham—that were given the vaccination contract just one month after the national campaign was launched? Will he also confirm that, since 1989, one of those companies—again Smith-Kline Beecham—made donations to the Conservative party totalling £110,000 and of £35,000 to that right-wing think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies?
How does the Minister respond to the people who argue that vaccinations are not effective? For example, Wrexham general practitioner Dr. Joanna Cleeson was reported in The Guardian as stating:
These diseases declined before vaccination with improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition; vaccination has not affected the rate. Scarlet fever disappeared without a vaccine. Sweden does not have whooping cough or diphtheria jabs and their decline has been the same as in other countries.
My position is one of concern that far too many components are given in one go, and I support the view of the national body, JABS—Justice Awareness and Basic Support—that vaccinations are not suitable for all children, that there should be health examinations before children are vaccinated, together with checks for signs or a family history of atopic reaction, and that vaccines should be offered separately if a child is felt to be at extra risk of side effects. Will the Minister comment on those demands?
I want to comment on the response of organisations such as Gwent Community Health to concerns expressed by families in my constituency such as Mr. and Mrs. Gregory of Tredegar, when they feared that their child was dying as a result of the vaccination. They were treated with disdain by the representative from Gwent Community Health when they were in desperate need of support and guidance. I would have thought that their concerns should have been listened to, respected and acted upon, but the opposite was the case. So much for the principles of the NHS customer charter launched this year.
The very same family also sent a report on vaccinations to Gwent Community Health, asking for its observations. They were told in March this year that the report had been sent to the relevant Government Department for comment. About six months later, I telephoned Gwent Community Health asking why Mr. and Mrs. Gregory had still not received a reply. A few days later, I received a copy of the reply, which was stamped 14 February 1995. Why did Gwent Community Health write to my constituents saying that it had sent the report to the Government and were awaiting a reply when it had received that reply a month earlier?
Will the Minister investigate all the complaints that I have made against Gwent Community Health? If such an investigation is carried out, it will go some way towards proving that the current Minister for Health was sincere when he said in one of his press releases:
Health authorities need to show that they are listening to the views of local people.
I am not alone in the belief that there should be a full public inquiry to examine these and many other issues raised by a number of eminent people. If the Minister

agreed to such an inquiry, he would be responding positively to promises made in many statements from the Department of Health about "honesty" and "accountability". That would ensure that the words of the previous Secretary of State for Health were a reflection of reality and not just a public relations exercise. The previous Secretary of State said:
the public are not just users of the NHS, but shareholders.
If the Minister is unable to answer some of my questions for a variety of reasons, I am sure that they will be answered in writing in the next few days.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on raising this important issue but I agree with very few of his conclusions. In fact, I advise him to be more careful about the sources for the information that he has put before the House.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, to many parents measles is an inconvenient and infectious disease from which many children suffer. To the World Health Organisation, measles is one of the main killing diseases of childhood and is responsible for at least 1 million childhood deaths each year. It is not a trivial illness and should not be underestimated. It can lead to complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis with the possibility of epilepsy and brain damage.
Nor is it just a serious disease in developing countries. In the United States epidemic of 1989–91, 130 children died of measles and its complications despite the availability of modern intensive care facilities.
Our record on measles in recent years has been good. Through our progressive efforts, such as the introduction of target-based payments for GP immunisation services, we have been able to raise immunisation coverage to levels well in excess of 90 per cent. Accordingly, target diseases have fallen to very low levels.
That apparently satisfactory situation has led some people to think that measles is no longer a problem and that, because there have been so few deaths, we need not worry. We have not been complacent, because the pattern of measles is like a volcano—after years of smouldering it suddenly explodes, producing an epidemic. That is exactly what occurred recently in Holland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. When such epidemics occur now, they affect people who are older than those who used to catch measles, and for them the complications and chances of death are much higher.
The reasons for the cyclical epidemics are well understood. With 90 per cent. vaccine coverage of the target population each year and 90 per cent. vaccine efficacy, only 80 per cent. of the population has full protection. Each year one accumulates 20 per cent. of the year's cohort as susceptible and, after about five years, the scene is set for a resurgence of measles.
To use the volcano analogy again, over the past few years our measles experts in the Department of Health and in the Public Health Laboratory Service have been acting as seismologists. They have been collecting information and carefully monitoring the situation. Unlike a volcano, which cannot be prevented from erupting, we have the capacity to prevent a measles epidemic.
In 1993, using the most extensive surveillance data, two groups of scientists based at the Public Health Laboratory Service and at the university of Oxford gave evidence to the Department of Health's independent expert advisers—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—that a measles epidemic was likely. The estimated date for the epidemic was 1996 or 1997. The predictions of both groups pointed to between 150,000 and 200,000 cases and up to 50 deaths. The JCVI reviewed all the available data, which included the experience of other countries with measles epidemics, and took account of the experience of adverse reactions associated with the relevant vaccines.
The committee agreed that it was right to prevent an epidemic when that could be done. It recommended that the most effective way to do so was to re-immunise all children aged five to 16 years simultaneously. That approach is fully supported by the World Health Organisation. Only last week, at a meeting of world experts on immunisation, Sir Gustav Nossal, chairman of the WHO scientific advisory group of experts and of the children's vaccine initiative, described measles immunisation campaigns as examples of a brilliant strategy appropriate to the purpose of preventing a disease causing 1 million deaths a year.
Following the recommendation of the JCVI in late 1993 and its acceptance by Ministers, the Department of Health started to lay down plans to implement an immunisation campaign. By mid-1994, however, it became clear that there were important changes that meant that the planned timetable needed to be accelerated if an epidemic was to be averted. Measles cases in England and Wales were occurring at a higher frequency, and among older children, than in previous years. It also became clear that an epidemic was already occurring in parts of Scotland. During the winter of 1993–94, 138 young people were admitted with measles to one hospital alone in Glasgow. Since 1970, there has been only one occasion—1973—when epidemics occurred simultaneously in England, Wales and Scotland.
In the light of those events, the group charged with implementing the measles campaign decided that there was no alternative other than to implement a campaign in the autumn of 1994 if an epidemic was to be averted. That plan had the full support of the chief medical officer and Ministers. I should point out at this stage that the only way to prove a prediction of an epidemic correct would be to let it happen. To do that would have been a gross dereliction of our responsibility for public health and would have been indefensible. Imagine the feelings of any parent of a child who died of measles if it transpired that the Department of Health knew that an epidemic had been predicted and efforts had not been made to prevent it.
The hon. Gentleman has made much of an article written by a Dr. Richard Nicholson, whom he described as an eminent source. All the expert advice at my disposal leads me to believe that Dr Nicholson at least does not fully understand the technicalities of immunisation, of mathematical modelling or of vaccine manufacture. Furthermore, Dr Nicholson has made some allegations of impropriety by the Department of Health in the vaccine purchase arrangements and he has even gone so far as to suggest that the Department's staff deliberately misled the medical profession and lied to the public. These are very serious charges.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sackville: I will not, as I have very little time left.
I unconditionally refute these allegations, and I regret that the hon. Member has made use of his position in the House, under parliamentary privilege, to repeat them. I hope that he will reconsider.
Following the decision to implement the campaign in November 1994, the NHS Supplies Authority approached every vaccine manufacturer to alert them to the country's requirements and to establish their ability to supply the required amounts of vaccine.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Sackville: No, as I have very little time and a great deal to cover.
Only two manufacturers could provide the quantities of vaccine in the time available. Competitive tenders were sought and contracts awarded. The usual rigorous criteria for licensing and testing were applied. With only three months available to manufacture, pack, label, test and supply vaccine, the EC rules for awarding contracts in emergency circumstances were followed, and appropriately so. The price negotiated was close to the lowest paid worldwide, and far lower than that paid by any other industrialised country.
At that stage, detailed market research was undertaken by the Health Education Authority to establish the information requirements for the campaign. Draft material was fully tested with parents and young people and evaluated in one district where a pilot immunisation campaign was run. A commercial sector advertising agency developed four different approaches for television advertising, and they were market-tested. The version that was used for the advertising campaign had by far the strongest support from parents.
In advance of the campaign, studies were undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service to investigate adverse reactions in children receiving second doses of measles and rubella vaccine. Colleagues from the United States and the Netherlands provided evidence based on their experience with second doses of the relevant vaccines. All relevant evidence pointed to a very low likelihood of adverse reactions.
The campaign was implemented in November 1994. In England, more than 7 million children were immunised, with school staff playing an essential part in ensuring the smooth running of the campaign. The results of the campaign have been excellent, with 92 per cent. of children aged between five and 16 being immunised. Since the campaign, the only two cases of measles that have occurred in the age groups covered have been in children who were not immunised in the campaign. A predicted epidemic has been averted.
As with all immunisations, however, the possibility of adverse reactions is always taken very seriously. We recognise that under-reporting of adverse reactions occurs, but there is far less of a problem with the reporting of more serious reactions, and they are the ones that matter most. It must also be emphasised that over-reporting can and does occur. The fact that an event occurs after an immunisation does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the immunisation. It is very understandable that parents might make that association when faced with a problem in a child who had been immunised recently.
Doctors were alerted by the chief medical officer to report adverse reactions on yellow cards—the usual method—on three separate occasions before the campaign. In view of the high profile and magnitude of the campaign, it is surely reasonable to suggest that there was good compliance on reporting. Furthermore, professional staff of the Medicines Control Agency followed up serious reported cases to obtain detailed information on a child's medical history.
Approximately 8 million children were immunised in the United Kingdom. A total of 2,735 reactions were reported among 1,202 children—a rate of one child affected with any reaction whatsoever for every 6,700 immunisations. Most of the reports were of minor conditions, many of which were unlikely to be linked to immunisation. There were no deaths. There were 530 reports of serious reactions—one for every 15,000 immunised children. One quarter of these reports were of immediate allergic-type reactions from which no serious or long-lasting effects are known to have resulted. In the remaining three quarters, there was a full recovery in those children with late onset reaction expected to have been caused by the vaccine.
All those cases reported on the yellow card scheme, with a clear link between the reaction and the vaccine,

made a complete recovery. For children in whom recovery has been incomplete, the evidence did not support an association with the vaccine. All such reported conditions are known to occur in the absence of immunisation.
Last November saw an outstanding public health exercise. Not only has a measles epidemic been averted, but measles is now at an historic low level in this country. As anticipated, adverse reactions were either trivial, or those that were serious occurred very rarely and were unlikely to be caused by the vaccine. Our actions were in full accordance with WHO policies. Knowing that an epidemic was imminent, it would have been indefensible not to implement this campaign.
Since we ran the campaign, we have spent considerable time and resources ensuring that a full evaluation has been undertaken. The monitoring of adverse reactions has been a keystone of this work. I shall be placing a full report on the campaign in the Library.
I regret some of the hon. Gentleman's comments and I reject his conclusions. I believe that we took the right action, that we took it at the right time and that we have achieved the right results.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.